Wednesday, 3 May 2023 [Volume 767] The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS SPEAKER: E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene. [Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King, and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the welfare, peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.] VISITORS Japan—National Diet SPEAKER: I'm sure that members would wish to welcome Mr Asao Keiichiro and Mr Ito Shintaro from the National Diet of Japan, who are present in the gallery. SPEAKER'S STATEMENTS Hon Meka Whaitiri—Independent member SPEAKER: Members, I wish to inform you that under Standing Order 35(5) the Hon Meka Whaitiri is from today regarded as an independent member for parliamentary purposes. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that advice. I raise matters with you that I think have some very important constitutional merit. This morning, at the Waipatu Marae in Hastings, the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, addressing a hui, made the following comment: "This morning, I have officially notified the Speaker that I have resigned from the New Zealand Labour Party and have joined Te Paati Māori, effective immediately." Now, as you know, under sections 55A and 55B of the Electoral Act, a member who ceases to be a parliamentary member of the political party for which the member was elected, where they cease to be a member—vacates that seat, effectively. Now, Ms Whaitiri has informed the public that she wrote to you, and, on the face of it, that would meet the terms of section 55B. If that were not the case, I wonder if you could inform the House whether a written notice wasn't received, and if it was received, what about sections 55A, 55B, and 55C were not met that meant that that vacation wasn't triggered? Thirdly, without wanting to cast any aspersions, I think this is an important constitutional matter, the like of which has not been tested since section 55 was amended in 2018. I wonder if you would consider tabling the correspondence that you received from Ms Whaitiri. SPEAKER: Members will be well aware that any member can say anything they like outside of this Chamber. When it comes to, as the member has pointed out, sections 55A to 55E, then there's some very specific events that need to happen for me to declare a seat vacant. I can confirm to the House that those events have not happened, and I have therefore not done so. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Speaking to that point, Mr Speaker, I accept that, and I'm certainly not wanting to challenge that. But I do think it is important, given that the intent of section 55A in substance was that when a member resigns from a parliamentary party and indicates to you, as she has, that she is now joining another political party in this House, that it behoves those parties to that correspondence to inform this Chamber how section 55A subsection (2) is not invoked. I tread carefully for two reasons: one is that your decisions won't be challenged in that regard, but, secondly, this is a really, really important matter, and I'm not sure that we have yet had the full disclosure of what's actually transpired here. I accept the point that you make, that what Meka Whaitiri says outside this House does not count necessarily, but you yourself have acknowledged that correspondence was received, but seemed to indicate that it was not in the form or of the substance that was described by Ms Whaitiri after she sent it to you. And I do think we need to traverse this—perhaps in more detail. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Speaking to the point of order—thank you, Mr Speaker—the only point I wanted to add to from what the member just did is to make sure that we fully understand section 55A of the Electoral Act. While 55A(2), which the member alluded to, does state that the seat of the member becomes vacant under the circumstances he described, it is important to read that in the context of 53A(3), which says, "For the purposes of subsection (2), a member of Parliament ceases to be a parliamentary member of the political party for which the member of Parliament was elected only if—", and then goes through. So just the impression could have been gained, from what Mr Woodhouse just said, that subsection (2) stands alone—it doesn't. Subsection (3) is the determining factor of subsection (2). Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Speaking to that point. I accept that, and I think that was implied in what I had said, because section 55A(3)(a), basically, says that that only gets triggered if the member of Parliament delivers to the Speaker a written notice that complies with section 55B. What's not clear to me or the House, I would expect, is whether or not that did not happen, or whether it didn't happen in a form commensurate with the requirements of section 55B. I would also add this: I don't believe it was the Electoral Act's intention that the form of communication prevented the effect of the Act from being followed. So, essentially, what we may have is a situation where, because of paperwork, a person that has, in fact, resigned from a parliamentary political party and has joined another political party is nevertheless still able to maintain the seat, despite section 55A. Now, I'm not quite sure whether this is the right forum to have this litigated, but I do believe that the Chamber and the public have a right to understand exactly how the Electoral Act has been interpreted in this situation. SPEAKER: I think it would be a dangerous situation for the Speaker of the House to start interpreting things that clearly have not been officially submitted to me. Now, as I began my ruling, members can say whatever they like outside of this House, but unless they inform me in the correct way by sending me a signed letter that that is the case, I can't act on it, and I'm not prepared to do that until I get a letter signed by the member concerned that that is what she has said outside is her intention to do. Chris Bishop: Point or order, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Is this a new one? CHRIS BISHOP (National): Yeah, it's a very important point, sir, because section 53B puts out three requirements. One is that it has to be signed by the member of Parliament, and you've just stressed the word "signature" or "signed" a couple of times, which may give a giveaway. So could I ask you: is the issue that it was received electronically without an actual physical signature? Which I think would be debatable, because it's a longstanding rule now that electronic signatures are available and emails can be, essentially, received electronically. The second point is that it has to be addressed to the Speaker. That seems like a matter of form. Is that the issue? Then the third issue, sir, which I do think the House needs some ventilation on, is the issue of resignation from a parliamentary membership of a political party. Is it the case, sir, that something turns on the word "parliamentary"? Members with long memories will remember the incident in 2002, when the Hon Jim Anderton resigned from the leadership of the Alliance Party but remained a parliamentary member of the Alliance Party for various parliamentary reasons. Are you, sir, drawing a distinction between Ms Whaitiri's membership of the Labour Party, in the incorporated society sense of membership, and membership of the Labour Party for political purposes, in a parliamentary sense? I know it sounds technical, but this is an important matter. SPEAKER: To the first part, I can confirm to the House that I have not received any letter of resignation, signed or unsigned, OK? So that's the first part. What I have received—[Interruption] This is important, OK? So interrupting while I'm making a ruling—you might find it funny, but this is a serious issue. What I have been advised by an—before I say this, actually, I believe I follow the law to the letter, and so when I tell this House that I do not have a letter, I actually mean it: I don't. What I have got is an indication from the Hon Meka Whaitiri that for parliamentary purposes, she has withdrawn her vote with the Labour Party, which, under Standing Order 144 and Standing Order 145, any member can do that, and therefore she is no longer voting with the Labour Party, and she can, as any member can, give her proxy vote to whomever she likes. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Last question, Mr Speaker, if you'll indulge me—well, it's two. Was that communication in writing, and, secondly, was a letter—paper or electronic—sent to your office that was subsequently withdrawn? SPEAKER: I have received the letter—the email that I spoke about—asking for her vote to be withdrawn. That was received by email. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Can you, please, just clarify: do you regard Meka Whaitiri as being a member of the parliamentary Labour Party or not? Now, I apologise if you feel you've addressed that, but I think it would be helpful for everyone to understand what your position is on that question. And, if the answer is no, then I don't really see how a vacancy cannot be created. If you could just answer that question, it would be very helpful to know. SPEAKER: It's really not for me to determine who is in which party. For whatever reason she has made that decision to write to me to withdraw her proxy is entirely up to her. That does not mean to say that I can interpret that she has left the Labour Party, but this is for parliamentary purposes. CHRIS BISHOP (National): Point of order. Quite a lot flows from this, Mr Speaker. In the interpretation of the allocation of supplementary questions and oral questions, as part of the rota, which is done proportionally, will the Hon Meka Whaitiri be regarded as a Māori Party MP for the purposes of oral and supplementary questions, and the general debate determination? SPEAKER: She'll be regarded as an Independent member for those purposes. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Speaking to that, if she's regarded as an Independent member, that can only come as an effect of her communications with you. And, if she's given you a communication that can have that effect, how can it possibly not also create a vacancy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Speaking to the point of order, I'd just refer that member to what you did, which is Standing Orders 144 and 145. Standing Orders there are with respect to votes that are held in this House. Communications about that are not the same as communications about the Electoral Act. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Perhaps, actually, I should just preface my question with saying that these questions might go away if the communication was released. But my question is: given your answer — Hon Grant Robertson: You're questioning the Speaker. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No, and I have prefaced every single comment about that with a clarification that that's absolutely not what I'm doing. But, Mr Speaker, you have just said that Meka Whaitiri wishes to be recognised for parliamentary purposes as an Independent member of Parliament. And that can only happen if she has resigned from the parliamentary Labour Party, and therefore it is, I think, worth considering, whether it's here or somewhere else, whether section 55B(c)(ii) has been met and, if that was inside a communication to you and signed by the member, I think there is still an open question about whether section 55A(2) has also been triggered. SPEAKER: The law as currently drafted allows no judgment at all to be exercised by the Speaker. A vacancy can only be declared if notice is given in a specific and correct way to the Speaker. That, as I have said now three times, has not happened. Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: A new point of order? Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yeah. SPEAKER: The Hon Gerry Brownlee. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Mr Speaker, doesn't that raise the question of why you were able to make the judgment that the member is now an Independent? The two Standing Orders that were quoted by Mr Robertson relate to persons who have given their proxy or who are part of a caucus. Once you withdraw from a caucus—then if you are not able to make a judgment, why are you able to stand in the House today and declare that Ms Whaitiri will be an Independent member? SPEAKER: I thank the member for his question. It's entirely up to the member themselves. As I've said already, I'm not making a judgment on which party that the member is part of—that's not my role. As I've said in previous rulings, the Act is very clear, and until I have got a letter stating that the member has resigned under that section, then she is still a member of Parliament. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for that clarification, sir. Then why are you able to make a determination that the allocation of parliamentary time will be removed from the Labour Party and given to the Independent member, when that would seem to contravene all of the intentions of the two Standing Orders raised by Mr Robertson? SPEAKER: Regardless of the way that the Hon Meka Whaitiri has advised both the public, the Labour Party, or anyone else about anything that she's doing, she has not notified me. So she can, as a member of this House, tell me that her proxy vote is not with the Labour Party now, as I've said before, and, for parliamentary purposes, that she is regarded as an Independent member of Parliament. CHRIS BISHOP (National): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Well, this is difficult, because if she is regarded by you as an Independent member, which you have said that she is, she has fulfilled and she has told—like you can't regard her as an Independent member unless she has told you something. SPEAKER: Only for parliamentary purposes. CHRIS BISHOP: Well, if she is regarded as an Independent member of Parliament and you've indicated that for the purposes of the allocation of supplementaries, etc., she will be regarded as an Independent member of Parliament, in a parliamentary sense she has fulfilled section 55B. She has notified you—by definition, she must have notified you, because you've just indicated you're regarding her as that. She has fulfilled section 55B, which therefore triggers the rest of the Act, and the seat is vacated. I'm struggling to see how you can regard her as an Independent member if for voting purposes and for proportionality purposes she is not regarded as a member of the Labour Party any more, she can be an Independent member of Parliament in this House, and that not trigger the Electoral Act. Parliament explicitly changed the law back in 2018 to make it so that in those circumstances, those members of Parliament who do that, who distort the proportionality of Parliament by leaving the political party with which they were elected—and leaving aside the merits of whether or not that was a good idea to do it or not, the law is the law. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, would this whole matter not be so much simpler if you simply retracted your statement that she is an independent member and instead said that she remains a member of the parliamentary Labour Party who has decided to have her proxy vote exercised independent of that party? Because it seems that otherwise we have a total contradiction. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Just on that very specific point, it is a very longstanding convention that it is members of this House that decide their vote, and members of this House, as is covered by the Standing Orders we've been discussing before, who can indicate, at any given moment, who is casting their vote. So the way round that the member put it would not be consistent with where we are. It is up to a member of Parliament to indicate that. I'm not going into the other bit, but on that piece, it would be that way round, not the other way round. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you. I mean, the confusion here, I think, is that when you look at the purpose of the bill, it says that it provides for a member to vacate their seat in Parliament if they choose to give notice to the Speaker of their ceasing parliamentary membership of the party for which they were elected. So is it our understanding that she has not ceased to be a member of the parliamentary Labour Party but that she has withdrawn her vote from the parliamentary Labour Party? Is that what we're being told? SPEAKER: Yeah; there are several different issues going on, and a lot of them are repeating or asking the same thing that I've already answered. For parliamentary purposes, the Hon Meka Whaitiri being an independent MP is a determination under Standing Orders. She has not told me that she is an independent MP, but for the purposes of Parliament, I have notified the House that she has asked me and informed me that she has withdrawn her proxy from the Labour Party and she wishes to sit somewhere else. That's it. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. No papers have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. No select committee reports have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. No bills have been introduced. The House comes to oral questions. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Finance 1. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The strength of the jobs market is continuing to support the New Zealand economy. Today, Statistics New Zealand reported that the unemployment rate has remained at a near-record low of 3.4 percent in the March quarter. The average hourly wage rose 7.6 percent, to $38.93, outpacing the current rate of inflation. We know that many Kiwi families are doing it tough in the face of cost of living pressures, but they do so while in paid work and with wages growing faster than inflation, easing some of the pressure that they are under. Ingrid Leary: What did the report say about employment growth? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: An extra 22,000 people were employed in the quarter, and 69,000 in the year. There are more women than ever in jobs. There is now a record high of 2.886 million people in work. Since 2017, 281,000 jobs have been added to the New Zealand economy. Our participation rate has risen to 72 percent, and the employment rate to 69.5 percent—record highs for both since the series began. Mr Luxon loves talking the economy down; we're proud of New Zealanders. Ingrid Leary: What reactions has he seen to the labour market report? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: ASB's economists said firms were hiring with "sizable gains in employment, record labour force participation, and [with] the unemployment rate and other … measures of the labour market hovering around record lows." Kiwibank's economists said the report showed strong job gains and chunky pay rises. They noted that the solid gains in employment are a result of increased labour supply, including from migration, which is helping to fill vacancies. Westpac's economists said that what workers are receiving in hand is keeping up with the rising costs of living. The constant chipping of the Leader of the Opposition means that he doesn't like good news; I understand that, but it's good for New Zealand. Nicola Willis: Does the Minister of Finance think it's appropriate to be crowing about the state of the economy on a day when the Reserve Bank has warned that more New Zealanders will be entering mortgage distress and may see their house prices spiralling downward further, and on a day when research has been released showing that hundreds of thousands more New Zealanders are waking up each day worried about their financial circumstances, with credit data showing more and more are going into debt arrears; is this a good economy under Labour? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What today is is a day to celebrate the hard work of businesses and workers right across New Zealand that means that we have an unemployment rate that sits below Australia's, we have people in work, our economy is 6 percent larger than it was before COVID. Every day in the House and outside of the House, we acknowledge that New Zealanders are doing it tough through a cost of living crisis. That's why we've supported them to make sure that they get through that; measures that every time we put up to support New Zealanders, the National Party oppose. Ingrid Leary: How does New Zealand's labour market compare internationally? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On comparable measures, New Zealand's 3.4 percent unemployment rate stands favourably against 3.6 percent in Australia, 3.5 percent in the United States, 3.8 percent in the United Kingdom, and 5 percent in Canada. The OECD average is 4.8 percent. In terms of employment rates, we are third in the OECD. The Opposition might not like it, but the New Zealand economy and the hard work of businesses and workers—[Interruption] I'm still talking—means that New Zealanders can be proud of the economy. I know the member's anxious to talk down the economy and stand up and ask a question about that. I'm proud of New Zealanders; I don't think the Opposition is. Nicola Willis: In terms of international comparisons, has the Minister of Finance seen the Bloomberg recession index, which shows recession probabilities worldwide, with New Zealand in second place for the most probable likelihood of a recession, at 70 percent, which compares with other countries such as Australia, with only 40 percent such likelihood? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I've seen many different indicators, almost all of which show that, relatively speaking, New Zealand has got through COVID in a better shape than most other countries. I know the members on the other side of the House think it's great to talk down the New Zealand economy. I'm not going to do that, because I'm proud of the efforts New Zealanders have made. Question No. 2—Prime Minister 2. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government's statements and actions? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Acting Prime Minister): Yes, in particular the significant financial support announced today to assist communities in the Hawke's Bay and Tai Rāwhiti regions with the post-cyclone clean-up of sediment and debris. This Government is wholeheartedly committed to helping our communities, including our growers, farmers, whenua Māori, and others, to recover from the cyclone. This is just another step, but we're going to keep working hard alongside these communities to recover and rebuild. Christopher Luxon: Has the Prime Minister lost control of the Government when one of his Ministers waits until he's airborne to announce that she's resigning and defecting to another party? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: That is a party matter. The person resigned from the party; clearly, as a result of that, the person is no longer able to be a Minister. But we're certainly still in control and certainly still excited to be Government with our strong 62 MPs in the House, and we look forward to continuing to serve New Zealanders, focused on what matters to New Zealand at this point in time. New Zealanders can be assured that we will continue working hard for them. Christopher Luxon: How can she have confidence the cyclone recovery is being well managed when the Minister responsible has apparently spent more time plotting a defection from the Labour Party than on the recovery? Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I'm the Minister responsible, and that ain't the truth! SPEAKER: That's not helpful. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I'm really proud of the commitment that we have made to the regions that have been affected by weather. There are a number of announcements and investments we've made to respond. We certainly recognise that this is a journey that we're on and that there is more to do. Our commitment is to working with the whānau and the communities in those affected areas to support them through the recovery and rebuild. David Seymour: Has the Minister considered taking a roll at the start of Cabinet meetings in order to check that no more Ministers have been lost? SPEAKER: Do you want to respond to that? You don't have to if you don't want to. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Oh, no. SPEAKER: It's out of order. Christopher Luxon: How can the people of Hawke's Bay and Gisborne have confidence that the next Minister of cyclone recovery for that region will last longer than the previous two? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I do want to mention that we have an amazing local MP who's not a Minister there, in Anna Lorck, and she's been working hard on the ground. It's important to acknowledge that. The person that has been put into the role as acting Minister for the cyclone recovery in Hawke's Bay is one of our most experienced with regards to this type of work. We trust that Kieran McAnulty, in his acting role, will serve that community and that region well, and we absolutely make a commitment to getting behind him with that work. Christopher Luxon: Does she agree with Chris Hipkins, who said introducing a capital gains tax would be "fairer", and, if not, why not? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I also agree with Chris Hipkins that that won't be introduced this term and that we don't currently have a tax policy. All political parties will have their tax policy before the next election, but it's certainly not on the table for us now. Christopher Luxon: Does she think a capital gains tax would be fairer? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: It's not a matter that is on the table for discussion, and so my personal views on such matters are not a consideration for this House. Christopher Luxon: Why won't the Government just come clean on its plans to slap Kiwis with a capital gains tax when they've made it crystal clear that's exactly what they're working on? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Opposition is continuing to act like we have some kind of secret tax plan. We've been very clear that we don't. If it was a secret, it would be a huge one, because the Prime Minister, myself, and every other person on this front bench does not know what that Opposition Leader is talking about. Christopher Luxon: How can Kiwis have confidence to invest for the future when she won't be clear whether those investments will be subject to a capital gains tax? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We've been really clear that we're committed to ensuring that our educational services, our health services, our social services are supported by us as a Government to provide that necessary support to all New Zealanders, unlike the other side of the House, who seem to be intending on cutting taxes and therefore services to New Zealanders. Christopher Luxon: How can the hundreds of thousands of small-business owners up and down this country have confidence to invest and grow their businesses if they have no idea how they'll be taxed after 14 October? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Thank you very much for confirming we will be in Government after October. We absolutely have shown our support to small businesses around this country in so many different ways, including the $18 billion that we invested into wage subsidy that held up so many businesses through what could've been a terrible, terrible time for them and ensured that we saved thousands and thousands of jobs for New Zealanders. Question No. 3—Prime Minister 3. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Acting Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government's policies and statements? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Acting Prime Minister): Yes, including the significant efforts of the Ministry of Social Development and a range of other Government agencies that have contributed to the labour market results released today. In particular, I want to highlight the fact that more young people are engaged in employment, education, and training with a fall in the NEET rate from 11.1 percent to 10.3 percent. This reflects our focus on getting young people ready for work through such programmes as Apprenticeship Boost, Mana in Mahi, and He Poutama Rangatahi. Ricardo Menéndez March: Does the Minister accept that many overstayers have lived in New Zealand for years and have deep roots in their communities yet are at risk of exploitation and living in fear of being raided at their homes without the rights afforded to residents? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I do accept that that happens sometimes. The recent event that occurred in South Auckland was unacceptable. Our Minister of Immigration has acted. We will all be watching this space because we do not accept that this should continue. Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she concerned there's an estimated 1,000 people with an overstayer status who are under the age of 18, including some born in New Zealand, living in households at risk of exploitation and isolated from public services? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Of course that is a concern. There is some thinking going on and some work being undertaken by the Minister of Immigration and we need to watch that space and see what comes of that. Teanau Tuiono: Does she agree with Princess Mele Siu'ilikutapu Kalaniuvalu Fotofili from Tonga who, at the Dawn Raids apology, urged the Government to consider an amnesty for overstayers? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We took that away. We took her comments seriously. As we have said before, and the Minister has said, regularisation as an idea or a potential policy down the track is not off the table. However, the Minister has made it clear that there is still work going on with respect to looking at that and he is still receiving advice. Teanau Tuiono: So does she agree with her own Labour colleagues who recommended that the Government consider a regularisation initiative for undocumented migrants as part of a report on a research piece on Tuvaluan overstayers, and, if so, will she support an amnesty for overstayers, given recent revelations? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I supported that research project and I support that work. And I certainly support the work that the Minister of Immigration is doing to explore this option. It's just not completed. But as I said, it's certainly not off the table. There is still work under way and he is still receiving advice. Teanau Tuiono: Does she think it's OK that overstayers who have worked to build public housing to help fix the housing crisis were raided and subsequently deported; and, if not, would it not be better for these workers to be able to work legally in Aotearoa with decent wages and protections? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I support the work that is under way by the Minister of Immigration with respect to looking at the possibility of regularisation. And the reasons I support that, I guess, were inferred in some ways in the member's question. There are lots of reasons why we should explore this as a possibility, but the work is not complete. Question No. 4—Finance 4. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that "There will need to be adjustments to tax income thresholds", and will he prioritise those adjustments as part of the Government's 2023 Budget? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): To answer both parts of the question, I agree with the Prime Minister's full quote, which was: "there will need to be adjustments to [income tax] thresholds as the overall incomes of New Zealanders rise. I am not outlining any specific plan about that today, but I do acknowledge from time to time there does need to be adjustment … But now is not the right time to do that when we have a high inflationary environment because we know that tax changes like that, that put more money back into the economy, can also lead to any additional value that people … get through tax cuts being quickly eroded by inflation." I note that OECD analysis indicates that the tax wedge for the average single worker in New Zealand—the measure of tax on labour incomes—is the 36th lowest of 38 OECD countries. The Government is focused on supporting New Zealanders to increase their take-home pay through wage increases backed by a strong economy and more jobs, and this has been reaffirmed today by the Statistics New Zealand report reporting wages have risen 7.6 percent over the past year. Nicola Willis: Does he think it's fair that under his Government, New Zealanders struggling through a cost of living crisis are being forced to pay higher average effective tax rates due to inflation-driven bracket creep? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As noted in the primary answer, the Prime Minister—and, indeed, myself, in the past—has indicated that there is, from time to time, justification and reason for adjusting tax rates. That has to be set in the context in which we live and the economy in which we live. We live in a situation now where we do have high inflation. We don't want to take steps that will unnecessarily exacerbate that inflation and we need to balance any decisions we make about that with what public services we can afford to provide. Tax cuts are not free; they have to be paid for, and the member will eventually have to explain how she's going to pay for them or which public services she will cut to do that. Nicola Willis: Why can he find more than $80 million to subsidise Teslas, hundreds of millions of dollars to fund more reports from highly paid consultants, and hundreds of millions of dollars to fund policy advisers, communications advisers, and the like, but he can't find money to let New Zealanders keep more of what they earn? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Two answers to that question. Firstly, a further acknowledgment from the National Party that they will do nothing to help New Zealand meet its emissions reduction goals. They're happy to sign up to agreements, but they will do nothing to do that. The second answer is that the member will be well aware that when tax cuts are put in place, they're there for ever; they're costed out for ever. It's billions and billions of dollars, Ms Willis—billions of dollars that either the member has to find somewhere or cut services to provide. That is the debate. That's the debate, Ms Willis: what services are you going to cut? Nicola Willis: Why, under Labour, is it never the time to give Kiwis tax relief, but it is always the time for the finance Minister to appropriate more of their money? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What the member is offering New Zealanders on low incomes is two bucks a week. That's what the member is offering New Zealanders on low incomes. What we've done consistently over recent years is prioritise support for low and middle income New Zealanders so that they are hundreds of dollars a week better off than they would have been otherwise. The member might think it's fair, somehow, for someone on a low or middle income to get two bucks a week while someone on a high income like her gets a thousand dollars a year; I don't think that's fair. Hon Damien O'Connor: Is the Minister aware of any confusing or misleading tax policy that said one thing prior to an election and delivered something completely different after? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I certainly— SPEAKER: Order! I'm just going to warn the Minister to be very careful. Patsy questions should not be used to attack Opposition parties. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can certainly say that that's not something I would do. Question No. 5—Minister for Children 5. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister for Children: What recent progress has he seen from the Enabling Communities work in Oranga Tamariki? Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): Last week I was pleased to launch a new community- and iwi-led plan at Waipatu Marae in Hawke's Bay to transform the way tamariki and whānau in Te Matau-a-Māui are supported. Te Ara Mātua was formed in partnership between Ngāti Kahungunu, Oranga Tamariki, and local health and social wellbeing partners. The new plan will see iwi and local organisations more involved in decision making from the outset, when whānau require intervention and support. It was so well received. Dr Liz Craig: What does this plan mean for tamariki and whānau in Hawke's Bay? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The plan means tamariki and whānau in Hawke's Bay will be better supported by iwi and community. Oranga Tamariki and its predecessors have been reviewed numerous times, including five times between 2019 and 2021, following the attempted removal of a newborn pēpi Māori in Hawke's Bay. Following this event, I established the Ministerial Advisory Board, and, with their recommendations, set a new direction for Oranga Tamariki. My direction was clear: communities and iwi should be supported to make decisions for their tamariki, and Oranga Tamariki should give them the support and resources to do so. Oranga Tamariki is supporting Ngāti Kahungunu to lead their own response to inform how the State can change the way it works with communities to deliver the best outcomes for tamariki. Dr Liz Craig: Why are plans like this important? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The Government is committed to seeing through the change needed in Oranga Tamariki. Iwi and communities are essential to this change, and co-designed programmes will deliver the change. We have committed $37 million to enabling communities to prototype Māori and community-led models across the country. The launch of Te Ara Mātua is a product of this programme, and marks a shift towards enabling and empowering communities. Dr Liz Craig: How does this approach benefit tamariki? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The changes are making a difference. For example, since 2018, uplifts are down 73 percent and there are 1,600 fewer children in care. Oranga Tamariki has been focusing on working with communities and iwi to make sure children are at the centre of everything they do. Te Ara Mātua was born from the flax-roots and it centres the voices of whānau. The feedback I received from iwi leaders and local whānau was positive. They are now ready to get on with their mahi to get better outcomes for their whānau. Question No. 6—Housing (Homelessness) 6. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Homelessness): How much of the $75 million she announced in Budget 2022 for delivering the Government's vision of an Aotearoa where homelessness is prevented, wherever possible, has been spent to date, if any, and what are the metrics, if any, for how each of the initiatives funded through the investment will be measured? Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Associate Minister of Housing (Homelessness)): This is funding that I fought hard for and signals a new way of working. We are delivering long-term solutions to homelessness in authentic partnership with the community, and we must not be drawn into the same old short-term thinking. Let me be clear; we are on track. Budget 2022 funded four initiatives, three of which are brand spanking new: supported housing for rangatahi, kaupapa Māori solutions to homelessness, and new funding for outreach programmes. All four initiatives are going to plan exactly as we set out in the original Budget documents, and are either already delivering or will have funding allocated by July 2023 as we planned. Almost $17.5 million of the funding has been contracted with providers for rangatahi transitional housing; this includes nearly $1.8 million already spent with providers who are housing youth in new places across Christchurch, Hamilton, and Auckland. Developing measures of success for initiatives is part of developing these new services themselves. New initiatives, which are community-led—thank you—take time to design, and I am committed to getting them right and delivering real change for our people. Chris Bishop: Why has just over 1 percent of the $75 million announced last year been spent, when 24,000 families are on the housing register and nearly 3,500 households live in emergency housing? Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: It is absolutely unacceptable that even one person is experiencing housing insecurity. We are very clear that Aotearoa should be a place where everyone has warm, affordable, secure housing where they can put down roots, and I want to be clear that the Budget 2022 funding is only one aspect of this Government's response to homelessness. Delivery of the Homelessness Action Plan has been ongoing and crucial. There are a range of drivers which contribute to the housing insecurity, and work is under way across Government to address the range of issues, including housing affordability and supply; poverty; access to and availability of social support services and health services—and we know there is definitely still more work to be done. My role in the Homelessness Action Plan has been absolutely crucial to focus the Government's efforts on preventing and interrupting homelessness. SPEAKER: That was a lot of information, but it didn't actually address the basic part of the question. Mr Bishop, do you want another question, or do you want to ask that one again? Chris Bishop: Oh, I'll ask that one again, if that's all right, which—it is very simple—why is only just over 1 percent of the money announced in Budget 2022 in relation to homelessness services being spent a year later? Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: All of those initiatives are working exactly to plan, and by July 2023—which is what we said they would do—those initiatives will be ready. These are a new way of working; Mr Bishop should move away from the old way of working that simply counted numbers out the door, as opposed to an enduring solution that the communities are authentically helping us to lead, and that absolutely does require the time to get these initiatives right. SPEAKER: That still doesn't answer the question. I'm going to give the member an additional question. Chris Bishop: When she says that these programmes are working exactly as planned, is she telling the House that it was a design feature of the announcement that no or very little money would have gone out the door a year later and the metrics for success, as to analysing the effectiveness of that money, will only be developed once the money starts being spent? Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: This is four-year funding. It was very clear that working in an authentic relationship with communities was always going to require a different and new way of thinking and approaching this work. New rangatahi-supported housing, kaupapa Māori responses to homelessness, and outreach in the community with homelessness all require the planning to be done and led by community and they can never scale up this work overnight. Never ever is that going to be an expectation on a four-year funding proposal, and I encourage Mr Bishop to continue with new ways of— SPEAKER: The Minister has now addressed it, thank you. Chris Bishop: Why didn't the Minister adopt the revolutionary idea of allocating money to pre-existing programmes and groups that are on the ground doing the work, who could actually deliver services to those in need right now in the midst of a housing crisis? Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: These initiatives are exactly experienced providers who know their communities better than our agencies do. This is where, traditionally, services have not gotten to the people that need it the most. All of these three new initiatives have exactly been allocated and worked with, with the community providers with that experience. That is exactly what these initiatives are. Chris Bishop: Well, if these initiatives are ones that already exist and they're delivered by experienced programme providers, why after a year has only just over a million—[Interruption] I'm still asking the question. Why, after a year, has just over 1 percent of the money been actually delivered into the communities when 465 families live in cars? Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Firstly, the member needs to listen to my answers. The providers are all experienced providers. The initiatives are new. The three initiatives are new. The existing services in the rangatahi and transitional housing have nearly all been allocated, because it is the very existing service that the member is referring to. There are a broad range of other ministerial responsibilities that I work closely with that are also responsible for providing that emergency support to people who need it, and that does not fall inside my ministerial delegation but I work with my colleagues to do that. We are also very clear that more work needs to be done and that is the work that we continue to do. Chris Bishop: Will any of the four initiatives funded in Budget 2022 target the 200 16- and 17-year-old independent young people currently living in emergency housing motels, and does she have a target for the number of 16- and 17-year-old independent young people who will no longer be in motels as a result of these initiatives? Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: As we have already seen through the Homelessness Action Plan, it is the very work under that plan that has seen, for example, more than 138 rangatahi-focused transitional housing places, an additional 3,000 extra transitional housing places delivered under the Homelessness Action Plan, 1,737 households turned into a house through Housing First, $10 million allocated through the Local Innovation Partnership Fund for brand-new solutions— SPEAKER: No. Order! Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Hang on—wait. There's some more good stuff. SPEAKER: Yeah, I'm sure there is, but I'm on my feet and I'm about to make a ruling. Just simply reading out a long list of expenditure doesn't actually address the question that's being asked. The question was very clear around young people and transitional homes. I'm almost afraid to ask the member to say more, but I'll leave it to Mr Bishop, if he wants to ask that question again. Chris Bishop: I'm happy to ask it again because it's an important point and just—I might get it slightly wrong. But the question was: will any or all of the four initiatives funded in Budget 2022 in relation to homelessness target the 200 16- and 17-year-old independent young people currently living in emergency housing and motels, and, if so, what is the Minister's target for the number of 16- and 17-year-olds who've been moved out of emergency housing motels as a result of these initiatives? Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Yes, as I was explaining, the examples of exactly where the funding has been going and will continue to go includes for rangatahi like the 138 rangatahi-focused— SPEAKER: Thank you. Given the amount of time that you spent before, I think you've addressed it now, so thank you. Are there any more supplementaries? No. Question No. 7—Transport 7. TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about investments in passenger rail? Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Last week, along with the Minister of Finance, I announced that the Government would co-fund a fleet of 18 new hybrid four-car trains for the lower North Island region, along with the Greater Wellington Regional Council. This investment will strengthen public transport links for those travelling in and out of Wellington from Palmerston North, Ōtaki, the Kāpiti Coast, and the Wairarapa. We will also support growth along these rail corridors that will deliver huge productivity benefits for the regions and the country. We know that the Manawatū and Wairarapa lines will have exceeded capacity by 2030 and that there is untapped demand for getting more people on to these lines. That's why we've invested in building up the rail lines in recent years. That's why we're currently refurbishing carriages for the Capital Connection, and that's why we're now putting our penny down to transform passenger rail services for the region, and futureproof for growth in the years ahead. Terisa Ngobi: What benefits will the investment in the lower North Island rail programme deliver for rail users? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well, the new trains will replace the current fleet from the 1970s and will at least double the peak service capacity along both lines, enabling around 1.5 million additional trips per year. This will provide significant time savings of commuters of up to 15 minutes on both the Manawatū and the Wairarapa lines. The new trains will operate using a combination of electric wires, batteries, and fuel, lowering our carbon emissions by around half a million tonnes, making us less reliable on volatile international energy markets. The investment for the network needed to enable the new trains will also build in much more resilience for both passenger and freight services, and stations will be revitalised to meet modern accessibility and amenity standards to improve the experience for passengers. I thank the member, Terisa Ngobi, for advocating for these services on behalf of the community of Ōtaki. Tangi Utikere: What reactions has he seen to the announcement of the Government's investment in new trains for the lower North Island region? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well, I have seen a range of very positive reports about the investment. Greater Wellington Regional Council chair Daran Ponter said, "The new trains will revolutionise life for commuters in the Wairarapa, Hutt Valley, Manawatū, Horowhenua, and Kāpiti who need access to Wellington, Porirua, and Palmerston North. Horizons Regional Council chairwoman Rachel Keedwell said that we know our communities will be really excited by this prospect. And, finally, Save Our Trains campaigner Paul Callister said, "This is a huge win and there are considerable benefits. These new trains will connect people, promote economic development, and help reduce our carbon emissions." I want to thank the councils and campaigners who we've worked with constructively in recent years to make this investment a reality for the people of the Wellington region, including the good folks of Palmerston North. Tangi Utikere: What other work is the Government doing to improve passenger rail services? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Since 2017, our Government has invested $8.6 billion to reverse a long period of managed decline and build a resilient and reliable network for the people and the freight of New Zealand. This investment has gone into the bread and butter work of replacing tracks, installing new culverts and bridges, and upgrading turnouts, all of which are needed for a safe and effective network. I'm proud of our investment across New Zealand's great rail network. It's one of the most carbon-efficient regional development building investments that we can make, and it's great to see this investment in the Wellington region. Question No. 8—Justice 8. NICOLE McKEE (ACT) to the Minister of Justice: Why was only $3.73 million of the $22 million approved funding for round 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Fund spent in 2022, and when the Ministry of Justice's website states "Round 6 closed on 14 February 2022. The round is currently paused", does this accurately reflect the status of the fund? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Yes; that statement is an accurate reflection. Round six is currently paused due to a significant portion of the fund having been allocated to priority projects, including the $6 million allocated in May 2022 to the Retail Crime Prevention Programme to assist small retailers implementing crime prevention measures, including physical barriers such as bollards, fog cannons, and roller doors, some of which my colleague the Minister of Police will update the House on today, I am sure. The $22 million of approved funding from round five of the Proceeds of Crime Fund has been allocated to successful applicants. The $3.73 million figure referred to by the member only represents expenditure from 1 July 2022 to 30 December 2022 by the applicants themselves, and figures are aggregated on a six-month basis, with further figures expected after June this year. Nicole McKee: Why have almost half of the initiatives that had their funding approved in 2022, such as Te Whare Hauora, which provides a safe place for victims of domestic violence, not received a single cent of that funding? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: As I just described to the member in this House, round five has been fully allocated and distributed to those successful applicants. Round six has been paused. I think it is probably useful, just to put it into some context for the House, though—some other large allocations have been made that have stopped our ability to be able to accept new applications to the fund. For example, in round six, a large-scale fraud was committed in an international jurisdiction, with the proceeds being laundered through New Zealand, and a multinational agreement and asset-sharing arrangement was negotiated, with the proceeds then shared proportionately with other jurisdictions. For law enforcement reasons, I can't go into the details of that fraud today, but I use that as an example of the types of events and initiatives that those funds are being spent on. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has she seen reports that lifetime Mongrel Mob member Harry Tam's company, which received $2.75 million from the Proceeds of Crime Fund to run a meth rehab programme, has managed to spend more than $100,000 of it hiring one van; and, if so, is this how she thinks the fund should be spent? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I haven't seen those reports. SPEAKER: I apologise to Nicole McKee. Sorry, I should have given you that supplementary. I mistakenly thought you had already asked two, so my apologies. Nicole McKee. Nicole McKee: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Any bonuses would be gratefully received. Ha, ha! To the Minister, does she think that she's taking a victim-centric approach when more money has been spent helping the perpetrators of crime-related harm through things like cultural reports than on the victims of crime-related harm? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I don't accept that characterisation. I think that victims have squarely been a core focus for our Government. This is embodied in the announcements that we made just last week—a three-part approach taken to the way that we look at dealing with victims who have been poorly served by multiple Governments over many years. We are looking at legislative reforms that strengthen and enhance the ability of victims to participate in the system. We are looking at trials that we are running, and, of course, we are increasing funding for both Victim Support—we've doubled their funding since taking office—and we've tripled the amount of funding that's been available through the Victim Assistance Scheme. Nicole McKee: Is she aware that there are organisations that have been forced to close down due to the proceeds of crime funding round being closed, with no certainty being given on when it will reopen again; and what does she say to the owners of the retreat who offered residential programmes for people suffering from drug and alcohol addictions, who recently had to announce the closure of their Ōtāhuhu facility due to the Proceeds of Crime Fund being closed? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Well, the first thing I'd say is just to acknowledge the roles that many people have, I guess, worked really hard on across a broad range of schemes in our community to look after those that have suffered, whether it's from drug or alcohol addiction, but many of the schemes that have been provided in the community by the community. Of course, we can't fund all of them. We've had to make some decisions to really focus in on some of our priorities. They have included the response to retail crime, for example, and there are many other initiatives that the Government often has to invest in. But I do want to acknowledge and thank those that constantly give their energy and their work to support those in our community that need support from people like those you've clearly mentioned in Ōtāhuhu. Question No. 9—Health (Māori Health) 9. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health): What recent announcement has he made on health equity? Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health)): Last Thursday, I announced, alongside the Minister of Health, $44 million of funding for primary healthcare providers to deliver high-quality services focused on benefiting Māori and Pacific populations. The funding is for two years to support whānau with the highest needs in New Zealand. This announcement rises to the challenge this Government accepted to have an equitable health system for all. I'm also pleased to advise the House that the first payment for this funding will be paid by Te Whatu Ora later this month. Paul Eagle: How will this funding support better access to healthcare? Hon PEENI HENARE: This $44 million fund will enable our primary care providers to stand up comprehensive care teams such as kaiāwhina, physiotherapists, pharmacists, care coordinators, and, in some our rural areas, they will need paramedics. Our providers have said to us that they need more of these roles so that they can provide more comprehensive support and access to whānau. With winter looming, we are also supporting these providers to access more front-line clinical teams to focus on early intervention, faster treatment, and better support over all. In addition to the funding I just mentioned, we are also providing an extra $30 million of primary care funding over the next two years to general practices based on their enrolled high-needs populations. This will cover shortfall funding in the current formula, which does not factor in ethnicity, socio-economic status, and age. I am proud of this Government for highlighting equity in a desirable health system. Paul Eagle: What is the significance of this funding? Hon PEENI HENARE: This announcement is significant for our communities and health providers. Better access to local care will go a long way to improving early intervention rates and help patients avoid hospital care, improving the hauora of those who need it the most. As I have travelled across the motu, the feedback I am hearing is overwhelmingly positive. Paul Eagle: How does this announcement support Māori health equity? Hon PEENI HENARE: For Māori whānau, this announcement is a response to the Wai 2575 report, which criticised the capitation funding system in New Zealand for not considering important factors such as ethnicity, socio-economic status, and age when distributing funds to primary healthcare providers. We know that our hauora Māori providers tend to have a higher proportion of patients with complex health needs and higher rates of chronic illnesses, and as such the existing one-size-fits-all funding formula is neither adequate nor fair. Both funds will see 78 Māori provider practices receive an equity adjuster of approximately $80 per person enrolled. Seventy-five other practices with more than 50 percent of their enrolled population being Māori or Pacific will receive a further $40 per person enrolled. For some practices, this may mean being able to continue to operate; for others, it might mean that they can employ more staff and expand their services. And, for others, they may choose to remove co-payments for some of their enrolled populations. There are no silver bullets for these challenges in front of us, but the support for this particular initiative is overwhelmingly positive. Question No. 10—Police 10. VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has the Government made about supporting the victims of retail crime? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): I was pleased to recently announce that the Government is continuing to help retailers get support for the security and safety measures by more than doubling the funding available through the Retail Crime Prevention Programme. While the spike in ram raids continues to trend down, it is vital, as a Government, that we continue to support retailers through crime prevention, and that is exactly what we are doing. The additional $9 million for the fund comes in addition to the initial commitment of $6 million, bringing the Government's total contribution to $15 million. Vanushi Walters: How many businesses have benefited from the Retail Crime Prevention Programme? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Over 500 businesses have had installations either approved or commissioned through the Retail Crime Prevention Programme, representing a total of 2,406 security interventions. Of those, 238 stores have had 1,107 security interventions installed and completed. That represents a complete fit-out of 240 fog cannons, 212 alarms, 195 security sirens, 110 roller doors, 84 sets of bollards, and 56 other interventions to improve store security. This, in addition to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's complementary fog cannon subsidy scheme, has approved 892 installations of fog cannons completed to date. Vanushi Walters: What feedback has the Minister seen regarding the Retail Crime Prevention Programme? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Police have received a significant amount of positive feedback from dairies, shops, and other small retailers, who appreciate that this Government is backing them and their business. I'm advised an assessor recently visited a chemist in Hamilton post installation, who expressed how grateful he and his wife were at the installation, particularly when his wife was working in the store alone. Another Northland store owner recently told an assessor, "In no form could we even contemplate the cost or afford this install the New Zealand Police has offered—and, again, we are speechless with thankyous." Vanushi Walters: What other work is the Government doing to reduce youth offending? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Alongside our work to better protect the victims of retail crime, the Government is also funding programmes to hold young people who are committing these crimes accountable while working to get them back on track. Programmes such as Kotahi te Whakaaro are seen as a good success so far, with around 82 percent of young people referred to the programme not reoffending. The circuit-breaker programme also intervenes within a short 24 to 48 hours, if a young person was a recidivist offender, to stop them committing further crime. That programme has dealt with 84 children so far, and 67 of those have not reoffended. As the Minister of Police, I believe it is crucial that we are tackling the problem of retail crime at both ends. Question No. 11—Revenue 11. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of Revenue: Does he stand by his statement that arguments against using unrealised gains for calculating effective tax rates are "bankrupt and rubbish", and will he rule out introducing legislation for a capital gains tax this year? Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): I do stand by my full statement, which further said that the idea that you would exclude all unrealised capital gains in an assessment of the super-rich is absurd. It is widely accepted by New Zealand and international tax experts, including the OECD, that unrealised gains are economic income. In response to the second part of the question: as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have made clear, the Government has made a series of commitments on what we would do and would not do on tax this term, and we have honoured those commitments. New Zealanders will know Labour Party tax policy for the next term before the next election, as they will for all parties contesting the election. Andrew Bayly: Will he rule out taxing unrealised gains on assets such as New Zealanders' KiwiSaver accounts, their bach, or their small business, and, if not, why not? Hon DAVID PARKER: We've got no plans to tax those. I would note what I said in the answer to the primary question. I would further note that the group that is in the study has, on average, $276 million of net assets, and structure their affairs so that the vast majority of their income is earned as capital income. The National Party, of course, is on the side of capital. The Labour Party notes that people who work for a living pay tax on every dollar they earn in their wages and salaries, every dollar they earn from a salary increase, every dollar they earn from overtime. It is the National Party and the ACT Party that think people who earn virtually all their income from returns on capital should pay tax at less than half the rate of people who earn their living through salary and wages. Andrew Bayly: Is he aware that there's no other developed country that taxes unrealised capital gains, and, if so, why would the introduction of such a policy be good for Kiwis? Hon DAVID PARKER: I'm not suggesting that all unrealised capital gains should ever be taxed. But if you want to find a country that does tax some unrealised capital gains, why don't you count Switzerland? Andrew Bayly: Did he express his view to the Prime Minister that arguments against a tax on unrealised capital gains were "bankrupt and rubbish", when the Prime Minister explicitly ruled out a capital gains tax, after the release of the IRD report? Hon DAVID PARKER: I've addressed some of those issues in the primary answer. I would also note I don't discuss what is discussed in Cabinet. But I can say that discussions in the Labour Party on taxation are much more economically literate than they are from the other side, who would tax labour at twice the rate of capital income. ANDREW BAYLY: Does he support the introduction of a capital gains tax? Hon DAVID PARKER: I stand by the Labour Party policy, which is that we keep our promises to the electorate. We have kept our promise this term. Our tax policy for the next term will be known before the election, and I would note that it wasn't the Labour Party who promised not to increase GST and then did it in Government.