Thursday, 4 May 2023 [Volume 767] The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS DEPUTY SPEAKER: 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, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen. SPEAKER'S RULINGS Speaker's Role under Electoral Act 1993 SPEAKER: I wish to clarify for members the role of the Speaker in relation to the creation of vacancies under the Electoral Act 1993. A seat of a member becomes vacant only if one of the circumstances set out in section 55 of the Electoral Act 1993 has arisen. If the Speaker is satisfied that a seat has become vacant in accordance with that section, then the Speaker publishes a notice of the vacancy. See sections 192(1) and 134(1). There is no other basis on which a vacancy can occur. Representation in this House is central to our democracy. As Speaker, I must be careful to ensure the law is applied correctly in such cases. As I advised the House yesterday, section 55A(3) is very clear that, for the purposes of the Electoral Act 1993, a member ceases to be a parliamentary member of the political party for which the member was elected only if a written notice is delivered to the Speaker that complies with section 55B or 55C. I have not received a message that complies with either of these sections. There is no leeway for the Speaker to declare a seat vacant if they are informed or become aware of the information that a member has ceased to be a parliamentary member of the political party for which the member was elected in any way other than through such a written notice. Like you all, I have seen media coverage stating that the Hon Meka Whaitiri intended to leave one party and join another. But those statements themselves do not cause the member's seat to become vacant. Section 55B of the Electoral Act 1993 provides that for a notice from a member to have the effect of making that member's seat become vacant, the notice would need to be signed by the member giving the notice and be addressed to the Speaker. It would also need to notify the Speaker that the member had resigned from the parliamentary membership of the political party for which they were elected or that they wished to be recognised for parliamentary purposes as an independent member or a member of another political party. A communication that does not comply with these requirements is not a notice that gives rise to a vacancy. As I have outlined previously, I have received a message from the Hon Meka Whaitiri informing me that her vote would no longer be cast by the Labour Party and that she wished to be seated in the Chamber next to members of Te Paati Māori. It therefore is not a written notice that complies with Section 55B of the Electoral Act 1993. As Speaker, I must administer the House's procedures, and this is problematic when a member's party status is unclear. In practical terms, I need to rule on how to treat a member who no longer sits or votes with the party they sat and voted with previously. Using my judgment and the knowledge I had that the Hon Meka Whaitiri no longer wishes to serve as a member of the Labour Party, I determined that under Standing Order 35(5), the member would be regarded as an independent member for parliamentary purposes. This means that the member will have rights to ask oral questions and speak in debates in proportion to the fact that they are one of 119 members in the House, and the Labour Party's allocation will be adjusted accordingly. The member also will need to apply to me if she wishes to seek permission to be absent. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Point of order. Mr Speaker, thank you for your further clarification of the situation. I have two questions. First, are you prepared to release all of the communications regarding this matter, and if the answer to that question is no, does that decision preclude the Hon Meka Whaitiri herself from releasing those communications, including the communications from the Speaker's office back to her? SPEAKER: I thank the member for the question. I was hoping that question would be asked. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Happy to oblige. SPEAKER: Thank you. As Speaker, I receive correspondence with members daily. It is extremely important that members can trust that all such correspondence can remain confidential, but in this particular case I can reiterate that I have not received any correspondence from either the member or the Labour Party that complies with section 55B or 55C of the Electoral Act respectively. I can also say that I cannot release that information, but the Hon Meka Whaitiri is able to if she wishes to do so. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that. I found that clarifying after the confusion that we had yesterday. The one bit that I just want to understand is towards the end of your statement, when you talked about the understanding that she would now be treated as an independent MP, but I understood from the earlier part of the statement that, because the Hon Meka Whaitiri had not notified you that she was resigning as a parliamentary member of the Labour Party, then, essentially, she is still a member of the parliamentary Labour Party. It doesn't then follow that she can both be a member of the parliamentary Labour Party and also an independent MP at the same time. Whereas I was following you were saying that she has notified that her vote has been withdrawn and that she wants to sit somewhere else in the House, but that doesn't change her status as a member of the parliamentary Labour Party. It just means that her vote is treated differently and she sits somewhere differently, but it doesn't then follow that allocation of questions and so on would move away from the Labour Party, because that would indicate that she has left the parliamentary Labour Party, which she hasn't notified you that she has. SPEAKER: Under Standing Order 36, the Labour Party has now advised me that the Hon Meka Whaitiri is no longer a member of the Labour Party. David Seymour: Speaking to that, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: A new point of order? DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Yes. To help understand that, would it be fair to say that Meka Whaitiri is now an independent member under the Standing Orders, but a member of the parliamentary Labour Party so far as the Electoral Act is concerned? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Speaking to that point of order, I think I get what Mr Seymour is saying in that particular point of order, which is to make the point that Standing Orders are the rules of this Parliament, and the Electoral Act are the rules of the land. They are by and large consistent, although, for example, there are things you can say outside Parliament you can't say inside it and so on. So I think the point Mr Seymour is making there is that there is an Electoral Act that has a particular set of information; there are the Standing Orders that have another set of information within them. David Seymour: I was hoping that you might clarify, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: I thank—actually, I thank both members, because both the question and the contribution actually answered the question: yes. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Point of order. It can't be the case that both positions are correct. One has to be correct. The other, simply, was a notification of what we all know to be the fact: there is a set of Standing Orders; there is the Electoral Act. The thing that's most interesting is that you've just said that the Labour Party have notified you that Meka Whaitiri has resigned from the Labour Party. Now, what's the standing of that, because anybody could send you a letter from anywhere saying that, you know, so-and-so has resigned from their party. There has to be some basis for you to accept that, and then, when you do accept that, how does that stack up? It's a notification to you about a member having resigned from the party that they were elected to. The next point I'd make is: is it possible now for members just to write to you to suggest where they would prefer to be sat inside this Parliament? SPEAKER: What I will say in response to the point of order is that this House makes the laws—that's the first thing I'd say. The second thing I'd like to say: if I had've accepted and notified yesterday that the Hon Meka Whaitiri—that her seat was vacant, we'd be having an altogether different constitutional discussion right now. The only way the member can vacate the seat is by telling me under section 55 of the Act. Now, as I've told this House several times, that has not been complied with. Given that fact, there has to be some way that the Hon Meka Whaitiri is to carry out her parliamentary work, and so I have said—as I have said—for parliamentary purposes, I'm considering that she is an independent member. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you be releasing, for us all to see, the advice that you've had on how you've interpreted— SPEAKER: Sorry, I missed the first part of that. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yeah. Will you be releasing, so that we can all see, the advice that you've had with regards to that? Because it seems to me somewhat odd that you can determine that someone is an independent without having left their political party, and that would also then suggest that the trigger for those two clauses that you have repeatedly recited this afternoon is somewhat less than the test that you yourself are applying to them. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, just to pick up a point that you made: under Standing Order 36, the Labour Party is obliged to write to you if there is a change in our membership. We have done that—that's what you just said before. So, you know, we've fulfilled our obligations in that regard. It is at that point you then make decisions about what you need to do in response to that. It is the identical set of circumstances that occurred when Jami-Lee Ross was both expelled from and resigned from the National Party on the same day. Under those circumstances, Speaker Mallard indicated what he would do in that situation. So we have fulfilled our obligations to do that. How that then relates to the matters within the Electoral Act relates to your earlier comments about what is required for that to happen. Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order. SPEAKER: No, I'm going to rule on this—thank you. As I stated before, in terms of releasing information, communications, between myself and members, I think every single member in this House should be wary of that. As I stated before, I receive daily communications from members. That confidence—[Interruption] Who is commentating over there? Simeon Brown: Oh look, I made a comment— SPEAKER: This is the probably one of the most serious things I've ever had to rule on, and having commentary from you, Mr Brown, is really not helpful. Mr Brownlee, so it is really in the interest of every member that the Speaker not be able to release private communications on anything, but it's entirely appropriate that members, if they choose to do so, can do so. CHRIS BISHOP (National): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. We appreciate your elucidation. I think there is one bit that we're all interested in, which is: if it would be possible for you to explain in a bit more detail how the communication you had from the Hon Meka Whaitiri did not fit within the terms of the relevant parts of the Electoral Act, because I think many people watching, and in this House, actually, regard the communication as having complied in the sense that it was sent to you, it was a message, it indicated an intent to resign from the parliamentary Labour Party and, in fact, join another party. You've outlined what the law is, carefully and deliberately. But you haven't outlined—and I think it might be helpful if you outline—how what happened didn't meet with the law, and so the factual scenario and how it measures with the law. That, I think, would be useful for us. SPEAKER: I can say to you, Mr Bishop, that you have made a number of assumptions about what you think— Nicola Willis: Well, just clear it up. SPEAKER: Nicola Willis will stand, withdraw, and apologise. Nicola Willis: I withdraw and apologise. SPEAKER: Mr Bishop, you have made a number of assumptions that are incorrect. It is not for me, after telling this House that I will not be releasing that information, to then discuss that information. That is private communication between the Speaker and a member. Any member can ask for advice. Any member can communicate with me about any matter they would like. I'm absolutely certain that none of the parties want to know and none of the members want me to tell you things that I get told as Speaker of the House. That would be highly inappropriate. I stand by what I've said before. It's entirely up to the members themselves if they wish to release any communication with me. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Point of order. Can I just make it clear: I wasn't asking for that to be released. I think communications between the Speaker and members should remain between the Speaker and the member. I fully accept that. But you've read out to the House this afternoon a ruling which clearly would have had some advice provided to you in the preparation of that ruling. That advice, most likely, would have gone to some explanation—more explanation than you were able to read in the ruling that you did read—about how each of those particular provisions interact, and why it is that the conclusion should be reached that has led to your ruling today. Now, that can't be confidential. That would be between the Office of the Clerk and the Speaker, and I would have thought that that is information that should be available to every member of the House. Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Speaking to the point of order, I suspect the answer to that is that, if the Speaker had received a notice in accordance with section 55—whatever the subsection is—of the Electoral Act that was in accordance with the Act, he would have acted on it and released the letter. That's not the sort of communication to which the Speaker's referring. Hon Gerry Brownlee: I think the point has been missed. SPEAKER: I would add to the mix that I am capable of carrying out the Office of the Speaker, and when I read things, some things are glaringly obvious to any member. The Hon David Parker is correct also. BUSINESS STATEMENT Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Next week, the annual review debate will continue, with appearances from the Ministers of Education , Health, and Justice. Legislation to be considered will include the second readings of the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, the Business Payment Practices Bill, and the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill; and the third reading of the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill. On Tuesday the 9th, the Prime Minister will move a motion to mark the coronation of King Charles III. On Wednesday the 10th, there will be a members' day. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Leader of the House for the update on the business for next week. I wonder if he could advise the House whether the Government is contemplating introducing legislation amending or repealing the waka-jumping provisions of the Electoral Act? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): I thank the member for his question. At this point in time, the Government is not intending to do that. I'm sure it will be a subject of rich conversation in times to come. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Ministers have delivered papers. CLERK: The 2021/22 annual reports for: Health Research Council of New Zealand MidCentral District Health Board Waikato District Health Board. SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on: briefing on the 2021/22 performance and current operations of Immigration New Zealand report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Tertiary education institutions: 2021 audit results and what we saw in 2022 reports of the Governance and Administration Committee on: the New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Bill the Public Service Commission briefing on the state of the Public Service 2022 report of the Health Committee on the petition of Laura Williams to increase funding for and access to adult ADHD screening and diagnosis report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the Charities Amendment Bill. SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The briefings and the report are set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Finance 1. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his commitments on tax, and has he met those commitments? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were made and undertaken—and yes. Nicola Willis: Why, then, when Heather du Plessis-Allan asked him on Monday this week "Are you going to bump up the ute tax?" did he say, "No"? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said, I invite the member to read the full context of that exchange with Ms du Plessis-Allan. I do note that the member has a tendency to have a word and then to just add the word "tax" at the end of it no matter what the situation might be. So, for example, on this side of the House, if we were to adopt that approach, what we'd do whenever the Leader of the Opposition spoke is we would describe it as a "waffle tax". Nicola Willis: Why should New Zealanders trust him on tax when, on Monday, he told them he wouldn't be bumping up the ute tax and then the very next day that's exactly what the Government did? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government laid out its plans on what we would do in tax at the 2020 election, and we have stuck to those plans. The Prime Minister has indicated, for example, that in the Budget there will not be major tax changes. When it comes to making sure that we actually meet our climate change obligations, I am very pleased with the way that the Clean Car Discount is operating. Nicola Willis: Did he or did he not increase the ute tax this week, and did he or did he not know that he was going to do that on Monday, when he said he wouldn't? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I indicated in the answer to the member's first supplementary question, just because she throws around the word "tax" in association with any other thing doesn't make it so. I do note that one of the examples of that that the member has used is the so-called "app tax"—the GST on online services—which the National Party vigorously opposed six months after vigorously supporting. Nicola Willis: Will he rule out imposing a capital gains tax? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As has been indicated numerous times, the Government has indicated there will be no capital gains tax in the Budget that comes up in a month's time. Nicola Willis: Will he rule out at a later date changing the law to retrospectively impose capital gains taxes on New Zealanders' assets? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This Government is in place through till the October election. I thank the member again for her confidence that we will be re-elected, but we have made very clear that there will not be a capital gains tax in the one remaining Budget of this term. Nicola Willis: Will he rule out imposing a capital gains tax on New Zealanders' KiwiSaver nest eggs? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have already ruled out a capital gains tax in this term. The Government of the next term will have its tax policy. I look forward to being able to lead that policy when the time comes. Question No. 2—Education (Māori Education) 2. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education): What recent announcements has he made regarding pay for kaiako and kaiāwhina working in kōhanga reo? Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education)): Yesterday, I announced the introduction of new pay rates for kōhanga reo kaiako and kaiāwhina, which will give them a historic earning boost and pay them in line with roles outside of kōhanga reo. An additional $76 million over five years will be allocated for this pay improvement, which represents one of the most significant boosts for kōhanga reo since the movement began in 1982. Shanan Halbert: How much more will kaiako and kaiāwhina earn under the new rates? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Once their kōhanga reo has signed up for the new pay framework, which is being administered by Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust, kaiako will receive an average pay increase of around 35 percent. To be more specific, under the previous system, the average pay for a kaiako at a kōhanga reo was $44,000 per year. Under the new rates, a full-time kaiako will start on $59,358 per year. The introduction of these new pay rates could see an experienced kaiako earn just under $100,000 per year. This increase will change lives and aligns firmly with the value that this Government places on workers and our focus on helping Kiwis cope with the cost of living pressures they are facing. Shanan Halbert: How many kaiako and kaiāwhina are expected to benefit? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: About 2,000 kaiako, kaiāwhina, and kaiwhakarite around the country are expected to benefit from this change as more kōhanga reo join the pay scheme. At the moment, about one-third of all kōhanga reo operating are already in the scheme, with the majority expected to be participating later in the year. Shanan Halbert: How is this announcement significant for tamariki as well as kaiako? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We know that Māori children do better in Māori medium and kaupapa Māori education, which is why it is essential for our tamariki that we attract fluent te reo speakers into becoming kaiako and make it an attractive career option. Those working in kōhanga reo have been paid poorly for too long and the Government is committed to correcting that. Question No. 3—Education 3. CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT) to the Minister of Education: How many teaching days were lost to industrial action by teacher unions in term 1 2023, and how many teaching days does she expect to be lost in term 2 2023? Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): I'm advised that due to the nature of the industrial action and the education system, the Ministry of Education does not hold information on the number of teaching days that are lost due to industrial action. When industrial actions occur, schools are required to remain open for instruction if they are able to. Schools are not required to report if they are closed to the Ministry of Education. The number of schools that have voluntarily reported that they were closed for instruction, closed for supervision, or fully closed due to the 16 March strike by Post Primary Teachers' Association (PPTA) and New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI) members were 982. Due to the 29 March PPTA strike, 52 schools reported being closed for instruction. I expect that negotiations under way between the Ministry of Education and the PPTA and NZEI education unions for the various collective agreements will move forward and progress towards new agreements being finalised. Chris Baillie: With the likely disruption to students because of ongoing industrial action, including strikes, refusal to relieve for absent teachers' classes, and sending children home on parent-teacher interview days, can she tell parents today what she is doing to end this dispute? Hon JAN TINETTI: I am unable to discuss the specifics of bargaining, as this is undertaken by the Ministry of Education. However, I expect that the negotiations with PPTA for secondary teachers, which are under way this week and being facilitated by the Employment Relations Authority, will make real progress. Similarly, I expect that negotiations under way today for the Area School Teachers' Collective Agreement between NZEI and PPTA will move forward and progress towards a new agreement being finalised. Chris Baillie: Does she consider that student attendance is a priority for her ministry of 4,000 staff when they don't know how many days kids are losing from school because of teacher absences? Hon JAN TINETTI: To the first part of that question, yes. Chris Baillie: Does she believe that the $1 million spent on her "Every School Day is a Big Day" attendance and engagement campaign was good value for money, considering that ongoing industrial action is exacerbating the truancy crisis? Hon JAN TINETTI: Yes. Question No.4—Education 4. SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Minister of Education: What milestones have recently been met in the Government's period products in schools programme? Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Today I had the pleasure of visiting Naenae College to announce that more than 1 million period products packs had been delivered to schools. A total of 2,126 schools have opted into the initiative, and over 213,000 students have access to free period products. This Government can be very proud of what we have achieved. Sarah Pallett: How is this programme supporting attendance and engagement? Hon JAN TINETTI: This morning I heard how the programme is benefiting students' attendance and engagement and their ability to participate in school activities. Every school day is a big day, and young people should not be missing out on time learning in the classroom or other events and opportunities because they aren't comfortable going to school while on their period. Some students don't come to school during their period because they don't have access to, or can't afford, period products. Providing them for free at school means students are more comfortable and more likely to want to be there. Sarah Pallett: How is the period products in schools programme helping to reduce stigma? Hon JAN TINETTI: Even today, periods aren't discussed opening and can make young people, in particular, feel stressed and insecure. The programme has an educational element to help young people to understand and embrace their bodies and show them that they're not alone in going through it. The Ministry of Education is also developing a series of resources to support young people to learn about menstruation and to assist whānau, teachers, and other adults with conversations with young people about periods. The first resource from the series is a comic called "It's all good!" that can be read by pre- and early-menstruating students. It is now available online in te reo Māori and English through the Ministry of Education website, and schools can order printed copies. SARAH PALLETT: How does this programme support the Government's wider work to reduce barriers to education? Hon JAN TINETTI: This programme goes some way to reducing costs on families, because we know that right now every little bit counts. By supplying period products, healthy school lunches, and scrapping the school donation scheme, this Government is tearing down some of the barriers that keep our kids away from school. We've very proud of this work and what it does for student learning outcomes and also student wellbeing. Question No. 5—Justice 5. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Justice: Does she agree with the Prime Minister's statement on electoral law that "There's absolutely no change to the principle of one person, one vote. Our elections are still going to be one person, one vote for the councils, for general elections", and does she stand by all her statements on electoral law? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Yes and yes, in the context in which they were made. Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can she agree with the Prime Minister's statement, when this Parliament passed the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Act last year, which gives Ngāi Tahu the right to appoint two councillors in addition to its members enjoying one person, one vote for all the other councillors—a clear move away from one person, one vote? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Very much in a similar way that members of the previous National Government reconciled those similar statements when they cast their vote for the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill. That bill, if this House will recall, did exactly one of two things. First, it ensured that there were democratic representatives elected to Environment Canterbury, and, secondly, it ensured that Ngāi Tahi retained the right and the obligation to appoint two members to that entity. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can she not understand the difference between an appointment made by a democratically elected Government, which is accountable to the voters, on a transitional basis, and a permanent shift away from the principle of equal voting rights in this country, as is brought about by the Canterbury Regional Council bill? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Yes, I fully do understand, and I understand that the previous National Government voted for a model that enabled direct voting and direct appointments by Ngāi Tahu in that circumstance. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she stand by her statement during the second reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill, "In simple terms, voters want to know, and have a right to know, how we as politicians butter our bread.", and, if so, why did she expect Kiwis to go down to the Companies Office to do research to figure out just how much of her bread the Race Relations Commissioner had buttered? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: To the first part of the question, yes. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does it set—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Order! The question. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does it set a good example that the Minister responsible for electoral law only declares a conflict of interest with a political donor after she has been caught red-handed? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Probably just to the latter part of that question first, if the member means caught red-handed by publicly disclosing and making declarations in accordance with the Electoral Act, then I stand here guilty. Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I let my colleague finish answering that question; I'm really struggling with how that fits with the primary question that was put down. SPEAKER: Yeah, I probably should have stood up and ruled that out of order, and I apologise to the member for not, actually. It is a term that is unparliamentary and shouldn't happen. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Did she recuse herself from Cabinet when the decision was made to award the Human Rights Commission an additional $10 million in Budget 2022; if not, why not? Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. A supplementary question must follow on from the primary question that was asked. I do not believe that that question fulfils that. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Speaking to the point of order, my previous question canvassed the issue of voters wanting to know how we as politicians butter our bread, which is perfectly on the question of transparency around donations, and this follows perfectly from that in terms of transparency and conflicts of interest. SPEAKER: Can you read that question again. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Which one? SPEAKER: The one that is being challenged right now. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Sorry, the current one? The current one is: did she recuse herself from Cabinet when the decision was made to award the Human Rights Commission an additional $10 million in Budget 2022; if not, why not? Hon Grant Robertson: Two points: the first is the substantive point I made, which is that that question does not follow on from the primary question, which is what a supplementary question must do. Secondly, I believe that after the exchange we just heard, you indicated that the question that Mr Goldsmith is trying to hang that supplementary off you would and should have ruled out of order. So, on both counts, both the fact that it doesn't follow from the primary question and from the fact that it shouldn't have been allowed as the previous supplementary question, that question is out of order. SPEAKER: Yeah, I'll rule on—I agree with the Hon Grant Robertson. That is neither about electoral law reform nor one person, one vote. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point. SPEAKER: Are you speaking to my ruling or a new point of order? Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, I would just point out, Mr Speaker, that it is not unusual in the course of oral questions for supplementaries to go slightly wide of the primary. The question—that was answered by the Minister—had an element at the end of it that you had ruled unparliamentary, but, having answered the supplementary question, it must be in order for the member asking the question to be able to further explore the answer that the Minister gave. SPEAKER: Yeah, but it's not about her statements at all. So have you got another supplementary? Hon Paul Goldsmith: Yes, yes it was. The primary question was: does she stand by her statements on electoral law? The third supplementary, which you did not rule out— SPEAKER: No, I'm not arguing—have you got another supplementary or not? Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, I can't remember how many I've had. No, I haven't, but— SPEAKER: Well, then, it's a no. [Interruption] Order! Question No. 6—Justice 6. Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei) to the Minister of Justice: What announcements has she made about improving victims' experiences in the justice system? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): The Government is delivering on its promise to improve victims' experiences in the courts and the wider justice system. In the recess, I announced a series of practical changes to give victims more rights and support in the justice system. This package includes legislative changes, new pilot programmes in the courts, and additional funding for Victim Support and the Victims Assistance Scheme. Since 2017, the Government has made the largest ever investment in victims—including direct support and system changes—with a goal of ensuring the justice system serves all New Zealanders. Dr Emily Henderson: What legislative changes will be made? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The Government will introduce a bill before the election that will make an immediate and meaningful difference to the lives of the victims of some of our most serious and violent crime. Currently, a child sexual assault victim can be questioned as to whether they consented to sexual activity. This is unacceptable and falls well below societal expectations of how the law should work. The bill will fix the law to minimise the risk of this happening. The bill will also provide the courts with greater powers to stop litigation abuse—for example, filing excessive or abusive applications in family-related proceedings—and clarify the process to lift name suppression in the criminal court, giving victims a clear opportunity at the time of trial to ask about having their name suppression lifted. Dr Emily Henderson: What pilot projects will be launched? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The Government will launch three pilot programmes in mid-2023 to improve safety and help navigate the court system for victims of serious crimes, strengthen support for child victims of sexual violence, and ensure victims' views are provided in bail decisions. These will be trialled in the courts in Whangārei and Manukau over the next year, with an aim to test fixes for some of the bigger gaps in the system and provide crucial evidence about what works in order to drive longer-term change. These initiatives will be evaluated, adjusted according to front-line and victims' feedback, and then, if successful, we can look at how the solutions can be scaled up. Dr Emily Henderson: What additional resources are being provided to Victim Support and the Victims Assistance Scheme? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Victim Support will receive an additional $3 million in funding, and $2.2 million in additional funding will be provided to the Victims Assistance Scheme. With this, Victim Support will be able to employ an additional 23 front-line staff, and its 187 active volunteers will be able to get better training and support to do their job. With the increase to the Victims Assistance Scheme, an estimated 10,000 more grants will be paid to victims. These services play a critical role in providing front-line support to victims at all stages of the criminal justice process and beyond. This announcement builds on the significant investment the Government has made since coming into office, including tripling the fund for the Victims Assistance Scheme and doubling the fund for Victim Support. Question No. 7—Social Development and Employment 7. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Why, when comparing the December 2022 quarter to the September 2017 quarter, were 49,377 more people receiving the jobseeker benefit but 37,551 fewer people receiving case management? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: The reason there are fewer people captured under the case management category is due to a change in the way the category is defined. Previously, if someone had been to a group seminar, they were counted as being in case management, whereas now the numbers reflect someone getting ongoing active support. I am advised that people with complex needs and specific employment support get case management support. Also, it is important to note that there are a range of supports available to those on jobseeker benefits; case management is just one type. To ensure that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) had a more focused approach to employment, this Government invested $76.3 million specifically for work-focused case management, and MSD has since ringfenced a number of case managers to focus just solely on employment. We're seeing record numbers of people go into work and off benefits: in the year to March 2023, we saw 90,693 people moving off benefit and into work. This was 15.8 percent higher than the 78,321 people who moved off benefit and into employment in the year to March 2017. Hon Louise Upston: How many more case managers has the Ministry of Social Development hired since September 2017? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: It's both an investment in specifically employment-focused case managers, as I mentioned, but it's also, actually, better and more targeted support that this Government has been investing in. I mentioned the figures previously in my answer to the primary question, which was $76.3 million specifically on work-focused case management and a ring-fenced number of case managers on employment alone. The other point that I'd just like to make to the member concerned is the fact that the Welfare Expert Advisory Group found, in 2014, employment-focused case managers engaged proactively with 50 percent of their clients every month to support them into employment at the time. That continued to fall to an all-time low of 19 percent until we started investing in employment-focused case management. Now we have about 55,000 people receiving ongoing employment case management. So it's not just about the numbers; it's about more targeted support. Hon Louise Upston: Point of order. I think my point of order is going to be quite obvious. I simply asked how many more case managers have been employed. Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to the point of order, the member's primary question is a fairly general question about the number of people on jobseeker benefit and the number of people receiving case management. To ask for a very specific number off the back of that question, the member can't expect that to be specifically answered. I believe the Minister addressed the question in her comments. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point, the primary question was very specific about people receiving case management and fewer people receiving case management. The question was "How many more". It would be perfectly in order for the Minister, if she doesn't, to say "I don't know". We got a very, very long dissertation that didn't go anywhere near addressing the question. SPEAKER: To be honest, I'm uncertain, so I'm going to give the member an extra question so she can further ask. Hon Louise Upston: If the number of increased case managers is approximately 1,500 that have been hired since September 2017, why are 37,551 fewer people on welfare receiving case management? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I will note that that is a figure that the member has suggested; that is not one that we're able to or that the Ministry is able to support at this point. But what I will say is that under this Government, as I have said previously, we have changed the way—and what it means to get case management is something that is much better and much more tailored to the needs of the people who need it. It is also one amongst a range of supports that people on jobseeker benefit get. As I mentioned previously, under the previous Government's definition, if you attended a group seminar with a whole bunch of other people, you were apparently getting case management, but it wasn't actually targeted to the needs of those people. On top of that, we're also seeing engagement with case managers increase as well. Hon Louise Upston: Does she accept that if more people had had case management, we would see more people move off welfare into work instead of 50,000 more on the jobseeker benefit? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: What I will say is that 55,000 people are receiving the tailored employment case management that they need, based on their needs. What I will also accept is that in the year to March 2023, we saw 90,693 people moving off benefit and into work. This is 15.8 percent higher than in the year to March 2017, and it shows our approach is working. Hon Louise Upston: If the case management approach is working, why is it that there are now more people returning to welfare after 13 weeks and, instead, she's claiming a great success of exits into work—they're back on benefit in 13 weeks? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I will say that employment is an all-time low. I have already outlined the figures of people getting into work. I can also say that there are a range of other supports like Flexi-wage scheme expansions, where 25,581 placements have been seen through that; Mana in Mahi, since 2018, over 5,800 placements; over 10,000 rangatahi have engaged over the lifetime of He Poutama Rangatahi; and 27,168 apprentices supported through the apprenticeship boost. What we are doing on this side of the House is to support people, in ways that they need, to get off the benefit and into work, and work that is meaningful. Hon Louise Upston: Does she accept that if more people had case management, we would see lifetime benefit numbers reduce instead of the 20 percent increase to 12.8 years, under her watch? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: As I have said time and again in this House to questions from this member, the way that we are supporting people through case management is different: it is more targeted; it is working, and I think I've already pointed out the figures to show that. Hon Louise Upston: Is she not concerned that benefit dependency has exploded with more people on the jobseeker benefit and staying there for longer at a time that businesses everywhere are looking for staff? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: As I've said previously, we are supporting people to move off benefits and into work that is meaningful—various figures can point to that—and that is work that we will continue to do. Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment 8. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What steps, if any, is the Government taking to review hardship assistance and civil defence payments that have not been increased in nearly 20 years to ensure these meet the needs of whānau affected by floods, cyclones, and other natural disasters? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: This Government has already made changes to improve hardship assistance. We've increased income thresholds permanently for hardship assistance so that low-income workers can access the support, and increased dental grants from $300 to $1,000. As part of the welfare overhaul, we also have a review of hardship assistance under way, and that will include civil defence payments. This Government has acted quickly to support communities impacted by weather events earlier this year, and we continue to do so. Civil defence payments are an important part of this and, over the course of the weather events, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) paid over $64 million in civil defence payments, to over 100,000 people. There is a lot of flexibility in the number of grants that MSD can provide in exceptional circumstances, and I believe that we have effectively supported people through these tough times. And, as I have mentioned, we'll continue to do so. Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she think that current thresholds for civil defence payment eligibility are adequate, and, if not, will she conduct the review with urgency so that families do not have to experience more severe weather events being able to only receive a payment that is 20 years old? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I think the point to note here is the flexibility of the civil defence payments. They cover a fair bit of ground—a large number of circumstances following the weather events that we have seen to date—and I think it's also important to note that we are currently looking into the rates of hardship assistance as part of the welfare overhaul, as I've mentioned. It is a priority for this Government to look into this over the next 12 months. Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she think families should always be made aware of the maximum amount they are entitled to through the civil defence payment rather than being asked how much they need, when it may not match the need that they have? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: As I mentioned previously, both the flexibility of civil defence payments and the fact that they are based on the needs of individuals and families are important to note. I think I've also made it clear that MSD case managers should ensure that people who are coming to them for support get their full and correct entitlement. In fact, there has been a work programme under way to ensure that this happens, and it is now standard practice for MSD to ensure that their clients are receiving full and correct entitlements at every engagement. In fact, during the weather response, MSD staff were on the ground from the get-go, working in civil defence centres, working in the community centres as well, setting up the emergency 0800 number, responding to thousands of calls per day for assistance, and they were—I've been on the ground at some of those centres myself, and I have seen that staff are talking to clients about their full and correct entitlements. Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she accept that if MSD staff do not proactively and always tell people needing assistance the maximum amount they are legally entitled to before asking how much they need, some families will not be getting their full and correct entitlements? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: While I can't speak on behalf of every individual MSD case manager, what I can say is that it is standard practice for MSD to ensure that clients do get their full and correct entitlements. Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree that climate-related natural disasters are likely to result in communities needing greater support through the civil defence payments, and, if so, will she move forward the review of these payments to ensure that they're fit for purpose? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Civil defence payments kick in when there is a civil defence emergency, and that will continue to happen regardless of the number of such situations we have. With regard to the review, as I have said, it is a priority for this Government to look into that in the next 12 months. Teanau Tuiono: Why did Māori receive, on average, a lower amount from the civil defence payment following the recent flooding events? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: On behalf of the Minister, while the average dollar amount per grant for Māori may be lower than for people of other ethnicities, it is more useful to look at the average dollar amount per person. The average dollar amount per person for Māori recipients of the civil defence payment was $630.63, higher than the average for Europeans and in line with the overall average. I will also reiterate the point that I made earlier that civil defence payments can be accessed multiple times, based on need. The Government has also invested $15 million to accelerate the Māori-led response to Cyclone Gabrielle. The investment is supporting a range of efforts, including providing relief workers, planning and coordination of recovery and clean-up, and purchase of replacement equipment and storage for food and taonga. Question No. 9—Education 9. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Education: On what date did she first become aware that her answer to an oral question on 22 February 2023 was incorrect, and did she attend a meeting with her staff on 9 February referred to in an email sent by her office to the Ministry of Education stating, "FYI, the Minister's office are looking to potentially release the Term 3 attendance data early next week. Something we can chat about at our meeting later today"? Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): To the first part of the question, on 1 May 2023 when the Speaker wrote to me regarding the matter, which I accepted and subsequently made a personal statement in the House on 2 May to clarify that. To the second part of the question, no. Erica Stanford: How could she have been so very adamant in answers to oral questions in this House that her office had no say over the release of the attendance data, when emails released under the Official Information Act (OIA) show that her office played an active role in planning the release of the term 3 attendance data to coincide with her political announcement on attendance? Hon JAN TINETTI: That was my understanding at the time. Erica Stanford: Why did she state in answers to oral questions on 22 February that the Ministry of Education are responsible for the release of the attendance data and that "I have no say over that.", when the Ministry of Education emailed her office on three separate occasions asking when will the data be released? Hon JAN TINETTI: Because the data is the ministry's data and it is their data to release. That was my understanding at the time, and that is what I stand by in my answer on 22 February. Subsequently, Mr Speaker, you have written to me and I have given a personal explanation, and I absolutely agree with your ruling and stand by it. Erica Stanford: Is she expecting this House to believe that her staff in her ministerial office didn't inform her in the six weeks before recess that her answers were misleading, given it was those same staff who were actively planning the release of the data to coincide with her political announcement? Hon JAN TINETTI: I was not aware of the correspondence the member is referring to before question time on 22 February. My staff informed me about it afterwards. However, I still felt my answers reflected what I was intending them to mean at the time of delivery, which is that the Ministry of Education are responsible for the collation and release of the term 3 attendance data. Erica Stanford: In relation to the answers she just gave, where she said that her staff did tell her after that supplementary answers were incorrect, why at that point didn't she ask them whether or not they were actively involved in delaying the date of the release of the data? Hon JAN TINETTI: Because the data is the ministry's data and it is their data to release. Erica Stanford: Isn't it true that in December, when she saw the term 3 attendance data, she actively worked to delay its release, then told this House she played no part in determining its release date and only corrected her statement 10 weeks later when she was forced to because of an OIA release of emails showing her staff actively planning to delay the data to coincide with her political announcement? Hon JAN TINETTI: No. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Order! I'm just going to remind the National Party that they have one more supplementary should they wish to use it. But I'm almost tempted to take it off them after that little display. Do you—[Interruption]Well, it's just in case you didn't realise. Question No. 10—Defence 10. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister of Defence: What recent announcement has the Government made about New Zealand's support for Ukraine? Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): Yesterday, the Government announced that we are significantly extending our defence commitments, as well as humanitarian, legal, and economic support for Ukraine, as part of the ongoing international response to Russia's illegal war of aggression. Since February last year, New Zealand has taken significant and unprecedented actions to support Ukraine, including the deployment of New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) troops into Europe, passing the Russia Sanctions Act that has enabled us to impose targeted sanctions for the first time outside of the UN framework, and introducing the 2022 Special Ukraine Visa. This Government continues to condemn Russia's egregious and illegal actions. Ibrahim Omer: What defence support has been provided to support Ukraine? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The New Zealand Defence Force has had personnel in Europe for over a year now, and New Zealand's deployments have been highly valued by Ukraine and our key partners. So far, 440 NZDF personnel have been deployed to support Ukraine, with 279 directly involved in the artillery and infantry training being delivered in the UK. We are extending the deployment by one year for 95 New Zealand defence personnel who will continue to train and support Ukrainian armed forces through to 30 June 2024. The extension of this deployment demonstrates both our ongoing commitment to the defence of their country against an unprovoked and unlawful invasion and to uphold the international rule of law. In addition to the infantry training, the NZDF has been invited by the United States to support training of Ukrainian personnel and Western-led space operations and increase the interoperability with like-minded partners. This work may also include the training of Polish armed forces personnel. Ibrahim Omer: What humanitarian support has been provided to Ukraine? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: This Government has already committed almost $13 million in humanitarian assistance to address the humanitarian consequences of Russia's illegal war of aggression in Ukraine. This package shows our resolve has not waned and our ongoing support for Ukraine and the international response has not diminished. The increase in humanitarian support for Ukraine announced yesterday includes $2 million to the Ukraine Humanitarian Fund to support the provision of healthcare, food assistance, clean water, and shelter; $1.5 million dollars to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, providing humanitarian support to Ukrainian refugees; and $500,000 towards a New Zealand Disaster Response Partnership with New Zealand NGOs on the regional refugee response. I might add that, in addition to this humanitarian assistance, we've also expanded the sanctions imposed on Russian and Iranian entities and individuals. Question No. 11—Corrections 11. TONI SEVERIN (ACT) to the Minister of Corrections: Can he confirm that of the 4,605 sentenced prisoners in Corrections facilities as at 31 March 2023, over 90 percent did not attend a rehabilitation programme during that month, and what implications does failing to rehabilitate prisoners have for the safety of New Zealanders? Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): As at 31 March 2023, 419 sentenced prisoners attended rehabilitation programmes, alongside prisoners taking part in a wide range of other activities, including education, employment, cultural, and reintegration activities. I note for wider context that as a proportion of the overall sentenced population, this is in fact a slightly higher proportion than attended a rehabilitation programme in the corresponding month of March 2017 under the previous Government. It is important to note that the member's question refers to one fixed point in time which does not provide a complete picture of a prisoner's rehabilitative journey. For example, prisoners may have recently completed a rehabilitation programme and not yet commenced another programme. In regards to the second part of her question, public safety is a top priority for myself and the Department of Corrections, and rehabilitation is part of that. Nicole McKee: Point of order. The question asked whether or not the Minister could confirm that 4,605 sentenced prisoners in corrections had not attended their rehabilitation programmes, and we got told that 419 had. SPEAKER: It's definitely been addressed. Toni Severin: Why was it, as of March this year, 37 percent of prisoners eligible to attend an intensive numeracy programme and 65 percent of prisoners eligible to attend an intensive literacy programme were not enrolled in any such programme? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: It's a well-known fact that due to the shortage of staffing in prisons, it's been difficult to provide full rehabilitation programmes, but this is a temporary thing, and it's also a well-known fact that there has been quite a substantial recruitment campaign that is seeing quite some success, and we hope to see that situation turn around. Toni Severin: Is it acceptable that 92 percent of sentenced prisoners did not receive even one of their weekly private visits in March 2023? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I refer the member to the answer I just gave. Question No. 12—Revenue 12. HELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister of Revenue: What were the main findings of the Inland Revenue Department's report on the effective tax rate paid by high-wealth individuals? Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Last week, Inland Revenue released its research, which showed the large difference between the tax rates middle-income New Zealanders pay on their income compared with wealthier citizens. The research delved into the wealth income and tax paid by 311 of New Zealand's high-wealth individuals, including their life partners and dependent children. Their financial affairs are very complex and can involve multiple trusts and up to a hundred companies. The study looked into the tax they paid personally as well as that paid via their many trusts and companies. They had on average $276 million of net assets each, $85 billion in total. The study showed that 93 percent of their income comes from investment returns and that their effective tax rate was 9.5 percent, including income taxes, company taxes, trustee tax, and the GST they've paid. The assessment criteria were based on similar studies overseas, including by the OECD, and the application of those tax criteria was informed by an external reference group. Helen White: Why was this research needed? Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, as Thomas Piketty has shown, population-based surveys like the household economics—[Members interjecting] They don't like it, do they? They just don't like it. Transparency on everything except the tax paid by the wealthy. But, as we know, Thomas Piketty has proven surveys like the Household Economic Survey (HES) are inaccurate at the top. The HES has only ever picked up two people with assets, more than $20 million in a country of billionaires. It's out by a factor of more than a hundred at the top. The IRD report used actual data, not an analysis of scenarios based on population-based surveys. So, for the first time, even the National Party now knows, indisputably, that the effective tax rate paid by middle-income earners is more than twice, sometimes three times, of that paid by our wealthiest citizens. Hon Damien O'Connor: Did that report indicate the effects on New Zealanders with low or high income—the effects of increasing GST? Hon DAVID PARKER: In fact, the study showed that the highest-income New Zealanders paid very low rates of GST relative to their income, compared with middle-income New Zealanders. Andrew Bayly: Why did the IRD use unrealised capital gains to calculate effective tax rates unless his Government, that commissioned the report, is gearing up to tax him? Hon DAVID PARKER: I'm not responsible for the phantom tax policies invented by the National Party. Helen White: What is the effective tax rate of someone whose income is a salary of $80,000? Hon DAVID PARKER: A Kiwi whose income is a salary or wage of $80,000 pays income tax at an average rate of 22 percent, plus the GST they pay out of their income. They spend two-thirds of their income, roughly, on GST, which means, as a percentage of their income, it's another 8 or 9 percent. So their effective tax rate is 30 percent, which is three times the effective tax rate of wealthy New Zealanders. A companion study from the Treasury shows that whichever way you cut it, Mr Bayly—whichever way you cut it, whichever families you look at—the wealthy are paying less than half the rate of the middle class. Helen White: What other insights does the Inland Revenue study provide? Hon DAVID PARKER: For me, one of the many interesting facts from the study is that, on average, the higher the proportion a high-wealth individual owns of a company, the lower the rate of profit and tax of that company. Given that the wealthy are amongst the best businesspeople in New Zealand, it's counter-intuitive. It indicates that high-wealth individuals can borrow more money against their asset base to acquire even more assets. Their interest costs reduce taxable income while capital income earned from the increasing asset base is often untaxed, exactly as Andrew Bayly likes it.