Tuesday, 6 June 2023 [Volume 768] The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS Hon JENNY SALESA (Assistant 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. 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. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Report of the Justice Committee on the Report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill report of the Petitions Committee on the Petition of Brian Webb: Require political parties to work together in national emergencies report of the Regulations Review Committee on the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Point-of-care Tests) Order Revocation Order 2023 (SL 2023/57). SPEAKER: The reports of the Justice Committee and the Regulations Review Committee are set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Prime Minister 1. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and policies? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the policy to add 1,800 extra police officers to the beat, which was achieved last Thursday during the graduation of wing 366. I also stand by the policy to ensure an ongoing ratio of one police officer to every 480 New Zealanders. This compares to the ratio of one police officer to every 544 New Zealanders when that member was last supporting a National Government. David Seymour: Does he believe building light rail to the airport will raise the value of Auckland Airport shares, and, if so, can he think of any ways to motivate Michael Wood to hurry up with that project? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'm not a stockbroker. David Seymour: Does he stand by his statement that his Government will "focus on the issues that matter to most New Zealanders", and does he believe his Government has been careful about the cost of red tape and regulation it puts on New Zealanders? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer the first part of the question, yes, and in answer to the second part of the question, if the best the member can come up with is to create a ministry for bureaucracy in order to deal with the bureaucracy, he perhaps needs to go back to the drawing board. David Seymour: Is he aware that early childhood education (ECE) providers need to comply with 303 different regulations before they can open their door in the morning, including keeping records for three months of all food they've served and the time they served it to whom, and is he aware of any situations where keeping these records has justified the cost of doing so? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The safety of children in early childhood education is something that all parents will prioritise, and therefore the regulations in this space are designed to ensure that our most vulnerable young children are kept safe while they are in early childhood education. There has been extensive consultation in recent years around the food safety guidelines in early childhood settings, and it happened after a child was brain damaged during an ECE service whilst eating. David Seymour: If he really cares about kids in early childhood education, why is it that he puts in place regulations that he cannot demonstrate the benefit of since they've been in place—not even once? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I believe I just did. David Seymour: Has the ban on pseudoephedrine and over-the-counter cold and flu medicines stopped or even slowed the P epidemic, and, if not, why is that law still in place at great cost to Kiwis who just want to blow off a winter chill with the most effective medicine possible? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, the good news is that those who are getting prescription pseudoephedrine for a cold or flu from their doctors now won't have to pay the cost of picking that up from the pharmacy under this Government. I note that it was the National-ACT Government that banned over-the-counter pseudoephedrine and required that people have to go to their doctors in order to get it. David Seymour: Does he agree with Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown that "Auckland Council Group spends at least $145 million on temporary traffic management each year, and utility companies have seen a fourfold increase in traffic management costs" while his Government has been in place; if so, what is his Government doing to ease the orange cone pandemic plaguing every New Zealander trying to develop absolutely anything anywhere? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member has a concern about road cones in Auckland, he should raise those with the Auckland mayor and the Auckland Council. David Seymour: Is he not aware that the Auckland mayor and Auckland Council are following statutes made by this House that his Government's responsible for? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member is referring to health and safety laws, I'd expect all councils across the country to be following them. David Seymour: Does he think lawmaking is good enough when stock exclusion rules are now in their third rewrite in as many years and southern farmers were forced to plant winter crops before 1 November even though the crops would freeze when planted before that time and their animals would starve through the winter? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It'd be fair to say that's not an issue that I have spent a great deal of time looking at. Question No. 2—Prime Minister 2. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all of his Ministers? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes. Christopher Luxon: Why did Michael Wood fail to disclose his ownership of shares in Auckland Airport, despite being responsible for major decisions impacting the airport? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: My understanding is he did disclose it to the Cabinet Office—in fact, the Cabinet Office have verified that to me. In terms of whether it was disclosed in the register for pecuniary interests, that's not a matter for me as Prime Minister. Christopher Luxon: When did Michael Wood first disclose his shares in Auckland Airport to the Cabinet Office? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: My understanding was when he became a Minister. Christopher Luxon: Why doesn't Michael Wood's ownership of Auckland Airport shares therefore appear on the Cabinet Office's register of ministerial conflicts of interest? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I've indicated, that was declared to the Cabinet Office. The Minister indicated to the Cabinet Office at the time that he was in the process of disposing of the shares. Christopher Luxon: Has Michael Wood been involved in any Government decisions with potential financial implications for Auckland Airport? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In the broad conversations that I've had with Michael Wood, we have not identified any issues that that would be relevant to. Christopher Luxon: Why didn't he stand Michael Wood down as Minister of Transport as soon as he was informed last week that he had failed to disclose his shares in Auckland Airport? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because I believe in natural justice. Christopher Luxon: What new information has he therefore received between Friday, when he was first informed about Michael Wood's shares in Auckland Airport, and today, when he finally stood him down? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I've had the opportunity to meet with him and have a conversation about that. I do believe in a process of natural justice. Christopher Luxon: Why is Michael Wood still the Minister for Auckland, when Auckland Council is actively considering the sale of its shares in Auckland Airport? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As Minister for Auckland, Michael Wood will have no role in those conversations. Christopher Luxon: Why does he always wait for his Ministers to be caught out publicly before he reluctantly takes action? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I completely reject that. Question No. 3—Energy and Resources 3. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How is the Government extending the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Through Budget 2023, the Government has committed to delivering over 100,000 more insulation and heating retrofits to low-income households over the next four years through the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme. This Government programme makes it far more affordable and accessible for homeowners to make their homes warm, dry, and healthy, and reduce their spend on power bills. Rachel Boyack: Will there be any changes to the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: While Budget 2023 provides certainty for the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme, we've also expanded the programme to enable minor repairs to bring homes up to the necessary standard to allow for retrofits. This will help thousands that could greatly benefit from heating and insulation, but issues with housing quality mean that that can't be currently installed. Funding will help some homes that, for example, need minor maintenance repairs to leaking roofs or damaged pipes in the underfloor that would normally require fixing before insulation can be installed. Rachel Boyack: What has the Government's Warmer Kiwi Homes programme achieved to date? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Budget 2023 extends the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme, enabling 100,000 more retrofits on the top of more than 117,000 upgrades that we've delivered since 2018, and we know the programme works. Motu's independent review of the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme found those in upgraded homes experienced an electricity reduction of 16 percent through the winter months, supporting households to spend less on their power bills. Rachel Boyack: What energy efficiency and health benefits does the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme provide? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: An independent review by Motu also found that Warmer Kiwi Homes were delivering better outcomes, with homes being, on average, 2 degrees Celsius warmer, 89 percent of homeowners reported less condensation on windows, and around half of homeowners noticed a reduction in dampness. Warmer Kiwi Homes improves health outcomes for New Zealanders, contributing to fewer doctors visits and hospitalisations being required, with research finding that this equates to over $15 million per year saved in avoided health costs. Question No. 4—Finance 4. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with Westpac senior economist Satish Ranchhod that "the pressure on households' finances will become increasingly stark over the year ahead", and how long has inflation been outside of the Reserve Bank's target range? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question, as I have stated many times in this House, we are acutely aware of the cost of living pressures faced by households now and over the coming year. That's why we've taken steps to support New Zealanders, including through measures the Government announced at Budget 2023. In terms of the second part of the question, as the member well knows, managing inflation is primarily the responsibility of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. As the member has not specified a time frame in the second part of the question, I can inform her that inflation has been outside the target range on a number of occasions in recent decades, including four quarters from December 2010, four quarters from September 2012, eight quarters from December 2014, and eight quarters from June 2021. I would further note that the Reserve Bank and Treasury both forecast inflation to be back within the target range from the third quarter of next year. Nicola Willis: Does the Minister think he got it wrong when he reassured New Zealanders in May last year that inflation was only going to be a short-term challenge, and does he expect the cost of living crisis will become better or worse this year? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, advice that we were receiving in the early part of last year indicated that inflation was coming towards its peak. That is not what turned out to occur. Across the world, we've seen inflation stay higher for longer than had been forecast. Nicola Willis: Is he concerned by reports of an apparent surge in the number of New Zealanders leaving permanently for Australia, and does he think it says good or bad things about the relative position of the New Zealand economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Over the years, there has been significant migration between New Zealand and Australia. What I would say to the member is that if she is here today advocating for policy settings that exist in Australia, I look forward to her advocacy for a capital gains tax and for a much higher top tax rate. Nicola Willis: Is he aware that mortgage holders in Australia are much better off than mortgage holders in New Zealand, with the official cash rate in Australia at 3.85 percent, compared to 5.5 percent here? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my primary question, the official cash rate is set by the Reserve Bank independently of the Government. Nicola Willis: Has he seen reported comments by Wellington City Missioner Murray Edridge, who says there has been a tripling in demand for these services compared to three years ago—"we're seeing a demand that we haven't seen before. People who would just get by before are now getting to the point where there's just not enough money to go around."—and does the Minister of Finance realise that that's an indictment on his economic management? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the member's question, I'm very aware of Mr Edridge's comments and have spent a significant amount of time with him over the years, and have a great deal of admiration for the work that he and the Wellington City Mission does. The reason why the Government has stepped forward over the last year and at Budget 2023 to help ease the cost of living pressure for New Zealanders is because we are fully aware of the pressure on households. I would note that most of those measures that we have proposed to take pressure off people have been opposed by the National Party. Nicola Willis: Well, does he think allowing average income New Zealanders to keep more of what they earn by reducing their income tax burden would put them in a better position to deal with the rising cost of living; and, if so, why has he refused to prioritise tax relief but has instead prioritised capacity relief for just about every single Government agency? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I would say is that on this side of the House, our strong belief is that the way for people's incomes to rise is for wages to rise. The member might believe that the only route to that is tax cuts; we do not. Question No. 5—Social Development and Employment 5. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she think current income support levels allow everyone to live without debt and out of poverty? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): This Government has lifted the levels of main benefits higher than any other Government, but we also acknowledge that there is more to do. During the last Budget, we took another step by waiving the $5 co-payment on prescriptions so that New Zealanders don't have to miss out on the medications that they need. I'm also reminding the House that the most recent Budget was what funded the 1 April changes, which included increases to benefits, superannuation, and student allowance, as well as the minimum wage. We continue to introduce legislation that raises incomes for New Zealanders. This week in the House, we have the third reading of the Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill. This change will lift as many as 14,000 children out of poverty and give affected families a median of $20 extra per week after the abatement of income-tested financial assistance. Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she concerned that debt to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) for things outside of benefit fraud and overpayments has now reached over $1 billion, and, if so, will she lift base income levels so that people do not need to get into debt to cover basic essentials? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I said in my answer to the primary question, we have significantly increased benefits. We've also increased Working for Families and the minimum wage; we have been very much focused on lifting incomes in New Zealand. We still recognise that there are some—particularly those on low incomes—who may need to access support for things like whiteware, for things like dental care, and for other things, and that support is available through the Ministry of Social Development. In some instances they do need to pay back those grants, but they are interest free and we expect case managers to work with clients to ensure that they are able to pay it back at an affordable rate. Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree that poverty is a political choice, and, if so, is her Government committed to ending poverty, rather than simply alleviating it? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: One of the first choices that we made as a Government was to introduce child poverty reduction thresholds through legislation. That really does demonstrate this Government's commitment to responding to the challenge of child poverty in this country. We now see 77,000 fewer children living in poverty because of the initiatives and policies that we have implemented, but the job is not yet done. We still remain focused on reducing levels of child poverty in Aotearoa. Ricardo Menéndez March: Will the Government be able to end poverty with the current levels of investment in the welfare system and Working for Families? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The member knows that we have been reviewing Working for Families. That work is still under active consideration. Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she believe that disabled people need to continue proving their disability to continue being eligible for income support? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As a Government, we have made changes to the amount of time someone on a jobseeker – health condition, injury or disability exemption needs before they require a new medical certificate. We now look at how long their doctor says their condition will last before asking for another medical certificate. Medical certificates for supported living payment assess work capacity, as the payment requires people to be permanently and severely restricted in their ability to work. "Severely" means that they cannot regularly work 15 hours or more per week in open employment. Some people receiving the supported living payment will never have their work capacity reassessed if they meet the criteria for simplified access. This includes clients who are terminally ill, totally blind, or have a severe intellectual or cognitive impairment. There are other clients on the supported living payment who may be assessed every two years, but that's also to ensure that they're getting access to the supports that they should be accessing through MSD, as well as access to support for employment if that is what they wish to do and are able to do. Ricardo Menéndez March: What does she say to the 70,000-plus recipients of the supported living payment who have long-term health conditions and have been on the supported living payment for over five years, yet have to continue proving that they are sick or disabled in order to continue receiving that support? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: It's not just about proving that they're sick or disabled; it's also about the system responding to their needs and actually proactively interacting with them. It's important that we meet with clients to ensure that they're getting access to what they are entitled to and, if they are able to work, support them to do that. Question No. 6—Regional Development 6. Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei) to the Minister for Regional Development: What progress has been made on water storage projects in Northland? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister for Regional Development): Recently, I had the privilege of announcing the delivery of a significant water storage project in Northland, boosting regional business and climate resilience with the opening of Matawii reservoir. Water plays an integral role in ensuring our regional economies are equitable, sustainable, and productive. As a result of the flood and drought cycle in Te Tai Tokerau, there needed to be a reliable water source to unlock the potential of the region's land, which has rich soils and an incredible climate for horticulture. As a result of Government investment, this potential will now be fully harnessed. Dr Emily Henderson: What will the Matawii reservoir mean for local communities? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Supported by $12 million in Government investment, the Matawii reservoir covers 18 hectares and has a capacity of 750,000 square metres, which is 300 olympic-sized swimming pools, and is located 3 kilometres east of Kaikohe. Not only is it going to help unlock the horticultural potential of land nearby but it will also supply water to the neighbouring Ngawha Innovation Park and can augment the town supply for Kaikohe. Dr Emily Henderson: How was the Matawii reservoir consented, Minister? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Matawii was the first project to be approved through the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act. This ensured the vital piece of community infrastructure was able to be completed at pace while providing immediate job opportunities during a time of great upheaval. The site was once a dairy farm, and, in just a few years, despite the pandemic, the project transformed the land from paddocks to water. Dr Emily Henderson: What other water storage projects have been delivered for Northland? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: An overall $68 million of Government investment in October 2018 supported the construction of Matawii reservoir, along with other water storage and distribution projects being developed in Kaipara and the mid-North. Once the remaining projects are complete, Northland will have the infrastructure and water to develop approximately 7,000 hectares of horticulture, creating hundreds of jobs and contributing to regional economic output. The Government has also contributed over $153 million to 30 projects in the water storage and management sector across New Zealand's regions. Question No. 7—Prime Minister 7. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes. In particular, Budget 2023's ongoing investment in Māori housing. Under this Government, we've approved or contracted 1,018 homes, enabled infrastructure on 1,615 sites for houses, and we've made 415 repairs for homes in Māori communities across the country so far. We should also note that Māori communities were particularly affected by recent extreme weather events. To support the recovery for these communities, 400 relocatable cabins are being delivered in Tairāwhiti, Wairoa, Napier, Hastings, and Te Tai Tokerau to assist those whānau who have been displaced from their homes. Rawiri Waititi: How can he stand by his Government's record on homelessness, given the recent release of the Waitangi Tribunal's stage one report on Māori homelessness, which found that the Crown has breached its Treaty obligations in failing to address rising levels of Māori homelessness? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That of course has happened over many, many decades, and it is something that this Government is committed to addressing. It's one of the reasons that we have built more new public homes in our five years in Government than at any time, I think, in recent history. We've got more work to do, there's no question, but it's also a reason why we're partnering with Māori communities to build more homes, because fundamentally that's how we will deal with homelessness. Rawiri Waititi: What is his response to the findings of the tribunal that the Crown has continued to breach the Treaty through failing to consult, its ongoing failure to collect thorough homelessness data, its continued failure to reform the welfare system, and its lack of support for homeless rangatahi? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I hope that the member will see our response in our actions in terms of the by Māori, for Māori approach that we are taking to dealing with Māori homelessness. We are absolutely committed to getting more homes built and more people homed. Rawiri Waititi: Will his Government adopt the recommendations of the tribunal "that the Crown and claimants now work in partnership on a new definition of homelessness that incorporates Māori perspectives."; if not, why not? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As with all of those reports, we will go through a process of appropriately responding to it. But I hope that the member will see in the actions that we have taken so far to date that we are absolutely committed to partnering with Māori communities to address homelessness. Rawiri Waititi: What does he say to Māori housing advocates, such as Hurimoana Dennis, who have said that the Crown must immediately establish a Māori housing authority to lead the efforts to address Māori homelessness? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I would say that the establishment of a new authority isn't necessarily the best way to deliver a by Māori, for Māori approach, and that actually working with grassroots local organisations in the way that our Government is doing is probably the best way forward. But we'll continue to have that discussion. Question No. 8—Tourism 8. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister of Tourism: How is the Government supporting better education and career opportunities in tourism? Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Tourism): Firstly, I'd like to acknowledge the resilience of our tourism workforce who have supported us through COVID-19; their work has not gone unnoticed. Through Budget 2023, this Government announced $18.2 million in funding to support the implementation of the Better Work Action Plan. This action plan will focus on the foundation of the sector: its people. It will ensure we create a stronger, more resilient, and sustainable tourism workforce across Aotearoa New Zealand. This investment highlights the Government's backing for the tourism and hospitality sector, and our commitment to transforming the sector into a regenerative one. Ingrid Leary: Why is there a need for a Better Work Action Plan? Hon PEENI HENARE: Perceptions and evidence indicate that workplace standards in tourism and hospitality are often lower than other industries. Post COVID, we have had a unique opportunity to rethink our approach to tourism and to rebuild differently—with sustainability, regeneration, and innovation at the industry's core. The Better Work Action Plan will do just this and help transform the tourism sector into a resilient, high-wage, productive industry that gives back more than it takes. Ingrid Leary: What is the significance of this announcement for the tourism sector? Hon PEENI HENARE: We know that, here in Aotearoa, we have amazing people working in the tourism sector—some are world-class innovators—but we also know we can do better. The funding secured from Budget 2023 will see more New Zealanders pursue jobs in tourism, like the young leaders from Dunedin in the gallery who are supported here by the Otago Community Trust. They can do this in the confidence that they will be supported through training, decent pay, good working conditions, support from employers, reliable work, and good career prospects. The adoption of technology and showcasing innovation will help to boost business efficiencies and capabilities, and improve productivity. Partnership between Government, the tourism industry, Māori, and unions, all work together to build tourism back stronger and more resilient for the future. Ingrid Leary: What feedback are we hearing on the ground around this announcement? Hon PEENI HENARE: The feedback I'm hearing is very supportive of the Better Work Action Plan, with tourism stakeholders saying the action plan is both practical and transformational, forming a holistic package of proposals that should bring about positive changes to the tourism industry. There are many positive stories of people with fulfilling and rewarding careers in tourism, and showcasing these people, their careers, and the variety that tourism has to offer should help attract more workers to this important industry in our economy. Question No. 9—Transport 9. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Acting Minister of Transport: Is he confident that all real or perceived conflicts of interest relating to the Transport portfolio have been appropriately managed, and how many times, if any, has he or his predecessor met with Auckland Airport leadership? Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Acting Minister of Transport): Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the first part of the question, the appropriateness of management of conflicts of interest are a matter for the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister. In answer to the second part of the question, I am advised that the previous Minister met with Auckland Airport eight times. In my role as Acting Minister of Transport, I have not met with Auckland Airport. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. I understand the difficulty the recent changes may have had with his primary question, but it was on notice and calls for the Minister to express confidence or otherwise. The way that first part of the question was answered did not address it. Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to the point of order. The first part of the question asks about the appropriateness of the management of real or perceived conflicts of interest. Those are matters, as the Minister said, that are in the hands of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office. Whether something has been appropriately managed is not a matter of judgment for a Minister. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point. That was an excerpt from part one—the last words in part one of that question were relating to the transport portfolio. It is definitely within the Minister's wheelhouse. SPEAKER: I thank the member the Hon Michael Woodhouse for raising the issue. It's a difficult situation because, as members will know, the portfolio at the time the question was asked and written was occupied by a different person. In this instance, I think it's reasonable for the Minister who is now acting in that position to answer the way that he has, but I also think that members should be able to examine closely those issues. For that reason, I will give the Hon Paul Goldsmith two additional supplementary questions. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why did his predecessor fail to sell his Auckland Airport shares after he undertook to do so to the Cabinet Office in late-2020? Hon KIERAN McANULTY: In so far as I have responsibility as Acting Minister of Transport, I am not in a position to answer that question. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think it is appropriate for the Minister of Transport to own shares in Auckland international airport without declaring that ownership publicly? Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not wishing to challenge your ruling, but this does raise the difficulty of the line of questioning around the appropriateness in the management of conflicts of interest. I just reiterate what I said in my earlier point of order: the way conflicts of interest have historically been managed is via the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister. The decision about whether one should or shouldn't do something is not actually a portfolio Minister's matter; it is a matter for the Prime Minister, usually acting on the advice of the Cabinet Office— Hon Gerry Brownlee: It's of interest to the House. Hon Grant Robertson: Am I doing a point of order or not? SPEAKER: Yes—continue. Hon Grant Robertson: And asking individual Ministers to comment on the appropriateness, in terms of divulging or managing conflicts of interest, if you think about it and take it to its most logical extent, is a fruitless exercise, because the ultimate arbiter and judge of those matters is the Prime Minister and Cabinet Office. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Speaking to that point of order. A Minister is responsible for his or her actions, and that is what I am asking. Hon Michael Woodhouse: May I also speak to that? Thank you, Mr Speaker. Your determination is on the degree to which the question is in order. Speakers' rulings 189/1 and 173/7 go to the issue of a hypothetical question. Mr Goldsmith's question was indeed hypothetical, which gives the Acting Minister some latitude in his answer, but it doesn't rule the question out. SPEAKER: I think the way that the Minister answered is definitely in order. I have given the member additional questions to further flesh out that. He should continue on. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he stand by his predecessor's action to own shares in Auckland international airport without declaring them publicly? SPEAKER: In so far as the Minister has responsibility for that, he can answer. Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I can speak to the declarations that I have made in this role, as Acting Minister, and I am confident that all are appropriate and have been declared appropriately. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question on notice was about his actions and his predecessor's actions—so it included the actions of his predecessor. I am asking him about his predecessor, and he's saying, "I'm not going to answer— SPEAKER: And that has been addressed. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he stand by his predecessor's view that to hold shares in a trust means that a Minister should not have to declare his ownership in those shares? Hon KIERAN McANULTY: In the question of declaring interests, Ministers take advice from the Cabinet Office. I have done that and am confident all declarations are appropriate. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will he promise, as Acting Minister of Transport, to fix the potholes and stop having us crawl around at 30 kilometres an hour? Hon KIERAN McANULTY: What I promise to do, in the time that I am acting transport Minister, is not to freeze the maintenance budget, as happened under the previous National Government. Question No. 10—Small Business 10. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister for Small Business: What further support is the Government providing to help keep small retailers safe? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister for Small Business): Last week, I was pleased to announce that the Government is expanding its assistance to small retailers through extra funding for the fog cannon subsidy scheme. It's vital as a Government that we continue to support our retailers through crime prevention. The extra $11 million for the fund means a total commitment so far of around $20 million to date. As a Government, we are committed to tackling crime from both ends. We are enabling those small-business owners to feel safe in their workplace, while reducing the causes of crime by enabling programmes like circuit-breaker. Naisi Chen: How many installations have benefited from the fog cannon subsidy scheme? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Over 700 installations of fog cannons have been completed so far through the fog cannon subsidy scheme, with 500 more installations booked and on the way. This includes installations of 396 dairies, 103 bottle stores, 31 service stations, 28 jewellers, and 16 pharmacies. This is in addition to Police's complementary Retail Crime Prevention Programme, which has completed 1,640 security interventions, installed across 225 stores. The retailers involved in these programmes that I talk to have told me that having a fog cannons in their stores helps them feel more secure. That's why we continue to support this work. Naisi Chen: Which regions have seen the most support from the fog cannon subsidy scheme? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The fog cannon subsidy scheme has completed installations right across the country, including 279 in Auckland, 122 in Canterbury, 120 in Wellington, and 60 in the Waikato. Of the future installations booked, 199 are in Auckland, 173 are in Waikato, 60 are in Canterbury, and 42 are in Wellington. With a number of applications still in progress, interest in the fog cannon scheme continues to be strong. Hon Mark Mitchell: Why does the Minister think that Pak 'N Save workers are having to start to wear body cameras to protect themselves from violence? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I acknowledge that retail crime is a problem and I encourage those businesses to take up all the opportunities available to them to keep themselves safe in their workplace. Naisi Chen: What wider work is the Government doing to support small businesses from crime? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Alongside our work to secure businesses and support victims of retail crime, the Government is funding programmes to hold young people to account who are committing these crimes, while also working to get them back on track. Programmes like Kotahi Te Whakaaro has seen good success so far, with 82 percent of young people referred to the programme not reoffending, or the circuit-breaker programme to intervene within 24 hours if a young person is a recidivist offender and stop them from committing further crime. This demonstrates this Government is tackling crime from both ends. Hon Mark Mitchell: Why does the Minister think that Michael Hill jeweller workers now have a 50 percent turnover, with many of them not wanting to go into the shop and being subjected, last week, to a machete attack inside the Glenfield Michael Hill jewellers? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I acknowledge, particularly, Michael Hill jeweller has had a number of issues around the country, but that's even more reason why we need 1,800 more police on the front line to make sure our communities are kept safer. Question No. 11—Police Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member who's about to ask the question. Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order under Standing Order 390(1)(a) and (b), which I invite you, Mr Speaker, to take some time to consider—I'm not asking you to rule on it right now. The question that we're about to hear, question no. 11, asks the Minister to stand by a partial statement that she made in an answer to a written parliamentary question. The question's been asked in various ways over the last few weeks, and my view is it does not fulfil Standing Orders because it is only a partial quote. While from time to time we've had questions that have had statements in them which might have a small series of dots that indicate a break between words in a statement, only asking a question about a partial quote can lead to significant misunderstanding and I don't believe is within the Standing Orders. I recognise the question has been accepted for today—I'm not asking for it to be changed for today, but I am asking you to give consideration to the practice of continually asking questions with partial quotes in them. SPEAKER: In the nine years I've been in this Parliament, there'd be hardly a week go by where questions to Ministers don't include quotes. I will go away and consider what the Leader of the House has raised. I think it's something that the whole of Parliament needs to consider, and perhaps the Standing Orders Committee is the place to address it. In this instance, though, the quote has been accepted as part of the question, and we'll move forward on it. 11. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement, "It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer"; if so, why? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): I stand by my full statement at that time: "it is my view that New Zealanders feel safer with a Government on track to deliver 1,800 extra police." However, the context in which that statement was made has now changed. I'm pleased to inform the member that this Government has delivered 1,800 extra police. I am sure the member will join me in welcoming the new officers. Hon Mark Mitchell: Why will the Minister's office not provide requests from both my office and the media to actually clearly show that there were 1,800 police officers graduated? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I am unaware of that statement—I'm unaware of that information. Hon Mark Mitchell: How can the Minister stand by that statement when a recent New Zealand Herald poll showed that 95 percent of those polled don't feel safer, despite an increase in police numbers? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I acknowledge that we have work to do, and this Government remains committed to tackling the drivers of crime at both ends by addressing those underlying causes like family violence and mental health but also equipping our front line with the resources, the rules, and the tools to get the job done. That's why I agree with Nicola Willis, who this morning said, "Well, it's clear to me that having good numbers of police in the community makes a real difference to law and order, because it's about having police available to fight crime and to deal with crime. It's about preventative policing. It's also about reassuring the impact and seeing the police visibly on the streets can have." Hon Mark Mitchell: Why did 95 percent of Kiwis polled not feel safer? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I cannot speak for 95 percent of Kiwis. Hon Mark Mitchell: Is the Minister one of the 5 percent of New Zealanders polled that do feel safer? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: This Government has invested more in the drivers of crime and more in front-line capability than the National Government ever, ever invested. The fact that that member chooses to take my quotes out of context in order to make a point speaks for itself. Hon Mark Mitchell: What quote have I taken out of context? SPEAKER: Sorry, you've run out of questions. Question— Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. During that question, I was just reflecting on Standing Order 390 as the Leader of the House has raised an issue with you. I'd make two points for your consideration at the end of question time. One is that as far as I can tell, quotes—partial or otherwise—are not referenced in Standing Order 390. I'd also add that Standing Order 396 is the mirror, and that's for the content of replies. The Minister of Police has given what she believed to be an appropriate quotation, which may or may not have been an accurate representation of the deputy leader of the National Party, and the point I'm making is that it would be a very bland question time if there wasn't an ability to be able to use the quotes of members and others. The Minister, in her answers to the primary question—which has been accepted as being in order for probably six or seven times now—has clarified and has contextualised her comments, and I don't believe there's a lot to be gained by spending too much time on that issue. Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to the point of order. Two points— SPEAKER: The Hon Grant Robertson, but please stay within what is being discussed. Hon Grant Robertson: Oh, absolutely, Mr Speaker; I wouldn't think of doing anything else. Just for the member's benefit, I do think—Standing Order 390(1)(b), in particular, around inferences, is the point that I'm making here. The question is different between a primary question on notice, and supplementaries and answers to supplementaries, in that a primary question on notice has to be authenticated. It has to be authenticated with a quote—and I don't want to relitigate what I said before—but it is that question where a quote clearly has to be put forward, and if that quote is only a partial quote, I'm not sure it meets the Standing Orders. Chris Bishop: Do you really want that to be the standard? Hon Grant Robertson: I'm not sure that that meets the Standing Orders. I wasn't aware we were having a conversation, Mr Bishop, but we can. Chris Bishop: Yeah, well, you just make stuff up about us all the time, so— SPEAKER: Order! Oh, gosh! Gee, I was going to let it go, but, you know, this is part of a point of order— Chris Bishop: Sorry. SPEAKER: —yeah—and you used a phrase in there which you are not allowed to use. So don't use it any more. Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: No, I want to deal with this one first, OK? I will, as I said before, go away and consider it and come back to the House. I thank both members for their contributions. A further point of order? Hon Mark Mitchell: Oh, it was just to clarify that in— SPEAKER: No, no, I want a new point of order, or— Hon Mark Mitchell: Well, it's in relation to the question that the Leader of the House has been speaking to. SPEAKER: Yeah, but is it new, or do you just want to have your say? Hon Mark Mitchell: Well, it's new information that may help you. SPEAKER: It doesn't qualify. Question No. 12—Environment 12. LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour) to the Associate Minister for the Environment: What announcement has she made regarding the Government's Waste Minimisation Fund? Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): Recently in Hawke's Bay I was pleased to announce almost $1 million in Government funding from the Government's Waste Minimisation Fund for BioRich. BioRich turns organic waste that used to be sent to landfills into valuable compost. Unfortunately, this facility was damaged by Cyclone Gabrielle. Before the facility was damaged it was able to deal with 100,000 tons of organic waste, including green waste and woody debris, every year. This funding will help restore that capacity and support improvements that will futureproof the site. Helping communities get back on their feet after the devastating weather that hit the northern parts of the country this year is a priority for this Government, and that includes restoring infrastructure to deal with waste. Lemauga Lydia Sosene: What other initiatives have also received funding as part of this announcement? Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Whilst in the Hawke's Bay I was also pleased to announce three other projects, totalling just over $2 million, to help tackle the wider problem with waste in New Zealand. The first is to expand Recycle South in Invercargill. The palletiser plant washes polyethylene and polypropylene plastics, including agricultural bale wrap from the lower South Island. The second is for Agrecovery to trial its regulated product stewardship scheme for farm plastics. This scheme requires all those who use plastics to take responsibility for collecting and dealing with farm plastics. The third is for Again Again, a technology platform that enables the loaning and tracking of reusable packaging. This will help expand the app to include a reusable container system for the craft brewing industry for tap room ports. Lemauga Lydia Sosene: What feedback has the Government received on its efforts to combat waste? Hon RACHEL BROOKING: We have been receiving a huge amount of positive feedback from throughout the community for this Government's efforts to combat waste. BioRich owner Mike Glazebrook said that the funding announced by the Government is a huge help towards recovery which would otherwise have taken until next year. He said it gave the company the confidence to get stuck in and get it up and running as soon as possible. Separately, Waste Management Institute of New Zealand chair Wayne Plummer told a conference last month that the past five and a half years have been most productive for tackling waste issues which are finally getting traction. Lemauga Lydia Sosene: How does this announcement fit into the Government's wider waste strategy? Hon RACHEL BROOKING: The funding I was able to announce goes toward projects that support the Government's goals of reducing waste and reducing emissions as part of the recently released Waste Strategy. This strategy has three targets to achieve by 2030, being reducing the amount of material entering the waste management system by 10 percent per person, reducing the amount of material that needs final disposal by 30 percent per person, and reducing the biogenic methane emissions from waste by at least 30 percent. URGENT DEBATES DECLINED Hon Michael Wood—Auckland Airport, Potential Conflict of Interest SPEAKER: Members, I've received a letter from the Hon Paul Goldsmith seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the management of a possible conflict of interest held by the Hon Michael Wood. "… Ministers are responsible for their management of conflicts of interest, and where there is a potential conflict of interest with the Minister's portfolio interests, then there is a legitimate ground for questioning."—Speaker's Ruling 165(3). There could well be questions, both oral and in writing, that can be asked and answered about any Ministerial actions or decisions Minister Wood may have taken while owning shares in Auckland Airport. The current application does not point to any particular action or decision made by the Minister, rather that there may have been such a decision or action made. It is not up to the Speaker to make the case for an urgent debate. I therefore decline the application.