Wednesday, 26 July 2023 [Volume 769] The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. SPEAKER: E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Amene. [Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King, and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the welfare, peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.] VISITORS Australia—Prime Minister SPEAKER: I'm sure that members would wish to welcome the Honourable Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister of Australia, to my left, and his accompanying delegation, who are present in the gallery. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of Epilepsy Waikato Charitable Trust requesting the House urge Whatu Ora to fund vagal nerve stimulation therapy for adults with intractable medication-resistant epilepsy as an adjunct treatment. SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers. CLERK: Auckland Light Rail Ltd, Statement of Performance Expectations for year ended 30 June 2024 Education Review Office, Strategic Intentions 2023 to 2026 SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Report of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the 2023/24 Estimates for Vote Business, Science and Innovation (excluding the appropriations that are the responsibility of the Minister of Police, related to the Retail Crime Subsidy Scheme) report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the 2023/24 Estimates for Vote Revenue report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Nikki Turner report of the Privileges Committee on question of privilege concerning a member's disclosure of the outcome of a vote taken during the Environment Committee's consideration of a bill reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the 2023/24 Estimates for appropriation within Vote Education Review Office: Independent Monitoring and Assurance of the Oranga Tamariki System 2023/24 Estimates for appropriations within Vote Internal Affairs: Supporting Ethnic Communities and Community Development and Funding Schemes 2023/24 Estimates for Vote Arts, Culture and Heritage; for Vote Housing and Urban Development; for Vote Oranga Tamariki; for Vote Pacific Peoples; and for Vote Social Development. SPEAKER: The report of the Privileges Committee is set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced. The House comes to oral question. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Prime Minister 1. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Can I just join with the Prime Minister and say welcome, Prime Minister Albanese, it's good to see you here and it's a very special relationship that we have with Australia and it's great that you're here in New Zealand. Welcome. Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly my decision to prioritise the ongoing strengthening of the trans-Tasman relationship with Australia. In that regard, can I also join with the Speaker and the Leader of the Opposition in welcoming our good friend the Prime Minister of Australia to the Chamber today. I believe that the trans-Tasman relationship is the strongest that it has been in decades. In 2023, New Zealand and Australia celebrate the trifecta of significant anniversaries: the 40th anniversary of our world-leading CER agreement, the 50th anniversary of the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement, and the 80th anniversary of the establishment of our high commissions in each of our respective capitals. This year, Australia announced a direct pathway to Australian citizenship for longstanding New Zealand citizens resident in Australia, a decision that I believe will bring our nations closer together, and I want to thank, in this House, Prime Minister Albanese and his Government for making that possible. And, of course, we have the FIFA Women's World Cup, which we are jointly co-hosting—another example of how we can work together on the world stage. Christopher Luxon: Who was correct: David Parker, who told media he quit as revenue Minister because his disagreement with the Prime Minister on tax policy made his positon "untenable"; or the Prime Minister, who claimed he wanted to focus on transport? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'm pleased to see the member's focused on the big issues affecting the country. Both statements, of course, can be correct. I'm absolutely confident that David Parker is going to do an outstanding job as Minister of Transport. Christopher Luxon: Does he agree with David Parker that his position as revenue Minister was untenable; and, if not, why not? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated yesterday, David Parker indicated that he was keen to move on from the revenue portfolio. I was doing a reshuffle anyway, so I was happy to accommodate that. I think he will do an outstanding job as Minister of Transport and, of course, I note that he is doing an outstanding job of repealing and replacing the Resource Management Act, something the last National Government spent nine years talking about and failed to do anything about. Christopher Luxon: When did David Parker first inform him that he no longer wanted to be revenue Minister in his Government? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We had a conversation about it yesterday morning. Christopher Luxon: Why, then, is David Parker still associate finance Minister with responsibility for assisting on tax policy when his position as revenue Minister is untenable because he doesn't agree with the Prime Minister on tax policy? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Sorry, to clarify: my last answer is Monday morning, not yesterday morning—you do lose track of time in this place. I believe that David Parker's position has been clear; he's made his position clear. He's very focused on his current portfolios and his current ministerial workload. I think he's going to do a great job of it. Christopher Luxon: Does he think David Parker was being a team player by quitting his job three months before an election? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Certainly more of a team player than the people who leaked his details about his Tesla. Christopher Luxon: Was the Prime Minister—[Interruption] Let me carry on— SPEAKER: Order! Members know the rules—Order!—when questions are being asked. Christopher Luxon: Was the Prime Minister being a team player, stringing his colleagues along for six months with the promise of a wealth tax before nixing it from Lithuania? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I completely reject the assertion in the member's question, but what I will say is that when I make a commitment on tax I'll stick to it—unlike the National Party, who promised New Zealanders they wouldn't increase GST and then did exactly that, meaning every time New Zealanders went to the supermarket, every time they filled up the car, they paid more because of National's broken promise. Christopher Luxon: How many times has he had to reshuffle his Cabinet since becoming Prime Minister? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Probably about the same number of times he's had to reshuffle his line-up because of complications on his side of the House. Question No. 2—Arts, Culture and Heritage 2. HELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What announcements has she made about supporting Auckland's St James Theatre? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): After being closed for the last 15 years, on Saturday I announced that the Government would be helping to unlock the doors of Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland's St James Theatre. The Government is making $15 million available to support the restoration of the theatre, in recognition of its outstanding historical and cultural significance. This contribution matches and sits alongside Auckland Council's $15 million. Successive governments have signalled their support for the project, but I am pleased that we are finally able to get this contribution across the line to help to save this important piece of cultural and national heritage. Helen White: What does this support mean for the St James Theatre? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This support will help unlock the theatre owner's ability to upgrade the building structurally and seismically. More specifically, this funding will enable the theatre to get started on critical foundational and strengthening work, including restoring the floorboards and beginning work to restore the theatre's art deco wonder. Restoration of the theatre is an ongoing labour of love for many, and this support will see the St James restored and revitalised as part of Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland's illustrious arts precinct and city centre. Helen White: What feedback has she seen on the announcement? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Heart of the City boss, Viv Beck, said Queen Street needed the energy and people that a repaired St James should bring—quote "This will really strengthen this part of the central city. It's been a bit of a sad site for some time, as it's lay vacant. And I think revitalising this area, repairing the St James, will bring in more people and make it safer as well." Helen White: What is the next stage in the process? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Alongside St James Theatre owner, Steve Bielby's efforts to get spades in the ground, Manatū Taonga have begun engagement with mana whenua, Auckland Notable Properties Trust, Auckland Council, and Heritage New Zealand to determine the funding conditions for central government's contribution. We're committed to ensuring all key stakeholders have an adequate opportunity to input into the discussion. Getting a clearer picture of stakeholder values and aspirations for the future of the theatre will help to inform the development of funding conditions for a central government contribution. I'm advised that construction will begin in early 2024. Helen White: How does this align with the Government's priorities in Auckland? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland has been through a lot in recent times—that's why this announcement and support is vital. We want to see the city centre revitalised. We want the Auckland CBD to be safe and accessible. We want the arts precinct that sits in the heart of the city to be exciting and vibrant, and we want our businesses to be connected, supported, and successful. The announcement underlines our Government's commitment to keeping the heartbeat of the city centre alive and thriving. Chlöe Swarbrick: How important is this investment in the restoration of the St James Theatre for the revitalisation of Auckland Central, and should this be considered as a sign of more good things to come? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I'd like to thank that member for that question and also acknowledge that member and all other Auckland members of Parliament on this side of the House who understand the economic benefits to the restoration of the St James Theatre. It is about economic benefits and the flow-on impact to the businesses in the CBD. It is about the cultural and wellbeing benefits for Aucklanders and visitors to Auckland. It is about support for our art workforce in Auckland and across Aotearoa. And also, according to Viv Beck from Heart of the City, it is about public safety in the CBD. It's exciting, and I am grateful to all of those who have been involved in making this happen. Question No. 3—Transport 3. SIMON COURT (ACT) to the Minister of Transport: Does he agree with former Minister of Transport Hon Phil Twyford, who said in March 2018, "Solving Auckland's traffic gridlock is also important for the rest of New Zealand with congestion in the city between 2015 and 2017 estimated to have cost the economy between $1.3 billion a year in lost productivity", and has congestion become better or worse since then? Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): Yes, solving Auckland's gridlock is important. We agree with the estimate of cost that is included in the member's question, and, indeed, Government Ministers have used those same figures. We also note major investments into State Highway 1 in north and south of Auckland, as well as major improvements to the western ring route on State Highways 16 and 18, and continuing significant investments into the city rail loop have all made things better than they would otherwise be. That said, it's interesting to note that Sydney, which has a much bigger population than Auckland, flows much better than Auckland because of their much better public transportation networks. We do agree—we believe that congestion is getting better in some parts of Auckland and worse in others. The areas that are getting worse include that the Auckland Harbour Bridge peak is getting longer, and congestion in the north-western corridor is also a problem. We've just spent significant money improving that north-western corridor, proving that roads alone don't solve the problem, and further investments in public transport as well as roads will be necessary. Simon Court: How concerned, if at all, is the Minister about time delays of more than 50 percent, compared to free-flowing conditions, for over five hours a day along State Highway 1 in Auckland, and what steps, if any, will he take to reduce congestion on the State highway network? Hon DAVID PARKER: As the member will be aware, overcoming those challenges requires a combination of investment in roads, in rail, and in public transport, as well as dealing with challenges like how do you deal with congestion. There is legislation that was approved unanimously at select committee to move towards transport pricing in Auckland. That legislation is currently opposed by the National Party, notwithstanding the unanimous support for it at select committee, including from the then member of the select committee Mr Luxon. Simon Court: Is it acceptable that Aucklanders driving between Manukau and Albany face delays greater than 50 percent, compared to free-flowing conditions, for 4½ hours a day—that's almost double the delays they faced in 2018—and should an efficient and effective road network be prioritised, instead of socially engineering people out of their cars, Minister? Hon DAVID PARKER: It's a false dichotomy. Actually, people choose to use the Northern Busway because it is both more cost-effective for them and quicker. The Northern Busway, a project of the prior Labour Government, is probably the most successful public transport or transport project in New Zealand's history and it carries a substantial proportion of the peak flow in North Auckland, including through the region to which the member referred. Simon Court: Will the Minister support ACT's policy to supercharge building toll roads operated by public-private partnerships (PPPs), Minister, for New Zealanders who are fed up with waiting in traffic? Hon DAVID PARKER: The Labour Government supports tolling where it is appropriate, including in respect of Penlink, where that is being proposed. What we don't support is unwisely structured PPPs such as that at Transmission Gully negotiated by the last ACT-National Government, which, with an appalling allocation of risk, left the Government facing enormous cost overruns that the subsequent Labour Government had to fund. Simon Court: Has Labour announced any new roads which might ease congestion, or is it simply continued projects that were started by the previous Government? Hon DAVID PARKER: We've both continued projects and done new projects. Question No. 4—Finance 4. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the decision not to progress his tax proposal for Budget 2023 that "I wouldn't have put so much work into it if I didn't think that it had merit. But I also am a team player"; if so, approximately how many hours of officials' time went into developing these tax proposals that were rejected? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I stand by my full statement, which also said, "I'm also somebody who's very conscious of the economic conditions that we're in". As I'm sure the member knows, officials do sometimes undertake work on policies that aren't ultimately enacted. I think back here to the work officials did for the Rt Hon Bill English and the Hon Michael Woodhouse on stamp duty before it was rejected by the then Prime Minister John Key. In answer to the second part of the question, I am also advised that relevant agencies don't hold that information, and policy officials don't record their time in that manner. It is my view that the level of additional resources that would be required to assess that now would be a waste of taxpayer funding. Nicola Willis: Why did the Minister direct Government officials to invest hundreds of hours developing a wealth tax, despite numerous commitments made in the 2020 election campaign, including the statement by Grant Robertson MP that "I can reaffirm we won't be implementing the wealth tax. We have our own tax policy and we have been very clear that we won't be doing the wealth tax."? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we've covered in this House on numerous occasions, in virtually every Budget process that we know about, there has been work done on taxation and tax policy, for example, the seven months of work that went into looking at a stamp duty proposed by Bill English and Michael Woodhouse before it was rejected by John Key. Nicola Willis: When, on 16 February 2023—this year—when he directed officials to "focus on designing a net wealth tax for Budget 2023", did he do that with or without the blessing of the Prime Minister? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the Prime Minister has already indicated, that work was under way when he took over; he was happy to see that work go to its conclusion. The decision was then made not to go ahead with it. Nicola Willis: Why, on 16 February, did he direct officials to stop work on the minimum tax proposal that had been advanced under Prime Minister Ardern, and instead tell them to develop a net wealth tax proposal, and why did this coincide with the election of a new Prime Minister? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member's active conspiracy theory brain just needs to be held in check a little bit. If the member does read through the documents, she will see that the work was evolving. We were looking at a tax switch, because on this side of the House, if we're even thinking about tax changes, we're thinking about how to fund them, unlike the member who is proposing unfunded tax cuts. Nicola Willis: Does he think it's tenable to remain in his role as the Minister of Finance when a proposal he has put so much work into and continues to think has merit has been so comprehensively rejected by the Prime Minister? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I know the member will be aware that in politics, from time to time, we put a lot of work into something and it doesn't quite come off, similar to the member's work on her leadership ambitions. Hon Damien O'Connor: What work, if any, did the Minister do on GST? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We, during this period of time, did not look at increasing GST. We certainly did not look at increasing it—after having promised to not do that—before an election, as the National Party did. Nicola Willis: Can he offer the House any insight as to why it's tenable for him to remain finance Minister—despite disagreeing with the Prime Minister on this major tax issue—but it's untenable for the Minister of Revenue to remain in his role despite similar disagreement; does it come down to one's a man of principle, and one isn't? SPEAKER: Have you got any more supplementaries? That one's ruled out of order. If you ask a question like that, then I'm going to leave it to the Minister whether to answer it or not. Clearly he didn't want to. I've ruled it out. Nicola Willis: Can he offer the House any insight into why it is tenable for him to remain finance Minister—despite disagreeing with the Prime Minister on this major tax issue—but it's untenable for the Minister of Revenue to remain in his role despite the same disagreement? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In the course of every Government, there will be decisions made where some Ministers propose ideas and those ideas do not get through. The reason that I find myself wanting to continue to be the Minister of Finance is because I know what is at risk from a change of Government, and that is New Zealanders' ability to get good housing, that is our education system, that is our health system. So I am very pleased to still be here, and I look forward to being here after 14 October as well. Question No. 5—Infrastructure 5. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What progress has the Government made in addressing New Zealand's infrastructure deficit? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister for Infrastructure): Being smarter about the way we plan, deliver, and use infrastructure is critical if we are to close the infrastructure deficit and deliver what New Zealanders need now and in the future. Through successive Budgets, our Government has already invested $45 billion over the last five years and has committed another $71 billion over the next five years for infrastructure. Our recently released Infrastructure Action Plan, which details Government's actions in response to the 30-year infrastructure strategy, also shows we are serious about delivering the transformation required to provide certainty to the construction sector. We're embarking on the long-term nation-building that any responsible Government must do to ensure we are addressing the country's current and future needs. Shanan Halbert: How is the Government improving infrastructure resilience in response to recent severe weather events? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Budget 2023 ring-fenced $6 billion for the initial phase of a national resilience plan to support significant medium- and long-term infrastructure investments which focus on the resilience of New Zealand's critical infrastructure. It is unacceptable that basic lifeline services like power, telecommunication, and transport links were out of action for so long. It identified a serious basic infrastructure problem that this investment will begin to address. The initial focus of the plan will be on building back better from those recent weather events. Shanan Halbert: How is the Government helping to provide certainty to the construction sector? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The National Infrastructure Pipeline is the first of its kind in New Zealand and provides visibility of a $92 billion pipeline of funded infrastructure projects across central government, local government, and the private sector. This helps the construction sector to plan and invest in their capacity and capability to deliver. The development of the infrastructure priority list also has the potential to be a game-changer, standardising the process to address infrastructure proposals, ensuring value for money, and building an enduring project consensus from a very early stage. This will provide confidence across the sector to better plan and invest in building and training our workforce. Shanan Halbert: How is the Government working with cities and regions to provide long-term certainty of planning? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Our Government has been working with cities and regions through the Urban Growth Agenda to support long-term pipelines in our regional partnerships. Currently, we have six regional partnerships in six separate areas: Auckland, Greater Christchurch, the Hamilton-Auckland corridor, Queenstown Lakes, Tauranga - Western Bay of Plenty, and Wellington-Horowhenua. The Urban Growth Agenda is about the delivery of infrastructure that meets the needs of that particular region. We are the Government of infrastructure. Question No. 6—Social Development and Employment 6. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment: What is the total amount spent from the December 2017 quarter onwards on Emergency Housing Special Needs Grants to date, and is she satisfied with the Government's performance on housing? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment): I'm advised that, since the beginning of the December 2017 quarter, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has granted 628,659 Emergency Housing Special Needs Grants, valued at just over $1.4 billion, in support of the immediate housing needs of individuals and whānau. Over the year to June 2023, the number of households accessing the Emergency Housing Special Needs Grants declined; there were 780 fewer households staying in emergency housing at the end of June 2023, compared to June 2022. In addition, we've also seen a decline in applications on the public housing register; there's been a reduction of 2,961 applications between the period of April 2022 and June 2023. We've been investing both in preventing people from entering the emergency housing system with our housing support products and increased support for those who require emergency housing. Initial evaluations clearly demonstrate the investment in support services, housing brokers, ready-to-rent programmes, and intensive case management, including working with MSD employment teams, are seeing better outcomes for those in emergency housing. In addition, the fantabulous work of our housing Minister has meant that we've seen the biggest public housing build programme since the 1970s. We've delivered already over 12,000 public homes in the time that we've been in office; in fact, to put things in perspective, of the public homes in New Zealand today, one in seven has been added in the last five years. This is a significant achievement when you consider that the first State home was built back in 1937. Chris Bishop: Why has the Government spent just $600,000 on the reset of the emergency housing system when $355 million was allocated in Budget 2022, when there are nearly 6,000 families living in motels and 480 are living in cars? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: What our Government has invested in, and as I touched upon in my primary answer, is a whole suite of support services that people can access prior to entering the emergency housing system and while they're in emergency housing as well. Things like intensive case management—for example, those who need support services; housing support products so that people can stay in housing or be diverted into private rentals and not enter the emergency housing system. I could go on, but those are the investments that our Government has made. Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about the reset of the emergency housing system and money allocated in Budget 2022 and how much money has been spent to date. SPEAKER: Can you remind me of the question? Chris Bishop: The question was, "Why has the Government spent just $600,000 on the reset of the emergency housing system when $355 million was allocated in Budget 2022?" SPEAKER: Not quite there, but it wouldn't take much to join those dots together to address it. Do you want to have another go? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Sure. The additional investment is, as I mentioned—the whole point of the reset is partly to prevent people from getting into the emergency housing system. It's to ensure that support that is provided to those in emergency housing can be accessed in a way that's relevant to them as well. Chris Bishop: Does she recall the Minister of Housing saying in 2021, "What we don't have is people living in cars and on the streets", and how does she reconcile that with her own data showing 480 people applied for the housing register while living in cars last quarter? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Actually, this is a point that I addressed in great detail last week in the House because the numbers that the member's referring to don't actually frame the issue well at all. As I mentioned previously, it's a cumulative figure— Chris Bishop: It's your own data! Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Yes, sure, it is MSD data, but it's a cumulative figure—it is a figure that increases over time because people only come off the list if they get into public housing. Ultimately, the only way that we can get out of the housing crisis that we inherited from that side of the House is by building public housing, and that's what we are doing. We have delivered 12,198 public homes on this side of the House, so that question about people living in cars is a bit rich from that side of the House. Chris Bishop: Why did the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (MHUD) reject the Wellington Homeless Women's Trust application for four new beds recently—four—because of a new policy that says MHUD will not fund transitional housing beds in places that have communal facilities? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I don't have Ministerial responsibility for that. Chris Bishop: Point of order. That's not correct; she's the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment, she's responsible for emergency housing. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Yes, not transitional housing, or special needs grants. Chris Bishop: Ok, nice—that's you dodging it. We put it down to her— SPEAKER: Order! Oh be quiet Mr Bishop, for goodness' sake. Everyone be quiet. Thank you. Now I've forgotten what the point of order was. Oh that's right, it's up to the Minister to know what her responsibilities are. If she says that they're not, then we'll take it as being correct, unless further questions will illuminate some other answer. Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder if in this case it would be helpful for the Minister to— SPEAKER: No, I don't think so—no, no, no, sit down. No, I've made a ruling—OK?—and you're not going to question it. Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order. Mr Speaker, why was the primary question accepted if the delegations are incorrect? SPEAKER: Well, clearly it was accepted because that was part of the Ministers responsibility. What the Minister said—and we're relitigating both what was said and my ruling on it—was that she wasn't responsible for what the supplementary was being asked. Question No. 7—Public Service 7. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister for the Public Service: What recent announcements has he made about strengthening New Zealand's cyber-security readiness and response? Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for the Public Service): The cyber-security threats New Zealand faces are growing in scale and sophistication. This Government is committed to staying ahead of the hackers to protect communities, businesses, and our public services. This morning, I announced that we're acting on the Cyber Security Advisory Committee's recommendation to bring New Zealand's Computer Emergency Response Team, CERT NZ, into the National Cyber Security Centre, NCSC, and that this will occur from 31 August. The new lead operational agency will strengthen cyber-security readiness and response, as well as make it easier for people and organisations to get help. I want to thank my colleague the Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications, the Hon Ginny Andersen, for her contributions to this important work. Ibrahim Omer: What was the Cyber Security Advisory Committee and what did it recommend? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Following a number of high profile cyber-security incidents, the Cyber Security Advisory Committee, or CSAC, was established in December 2021 to advise on the role Government could play in lifting cyber-security capability. It was chaired by one of the early leaders of TradeMe, Mike O'Donnell, and included representatives from industry and cyber-security bodies, Consumer New Zealand, State-owned enterprises, large business, academia, and Māori. After a year of consultations, CSAC found the system was fragmented, created what they described as a "merry-go-round experience" for business victims, and did not present a safe experience for Māori, especially when information sharing goes unchecked. CSAC recommended the creation of a single front door to provide authoritative advice and respond to incidents across every threat level. It said this would be best achieved by merging CERT NZ and the NCSC, in part because the NCSC is subject to robust legislation to protect individuals and users' data, whereas the previous Government did not put the same protections around CERT NZ when they established that organisation. Ibrahim Omer: What have been the trends in cyber-security threats to New Zealand? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We know the scale, sophistication, and disruption caused by cyber-security threats are increasing. Criminal actors increasingly have access to tools that were previously only available to nation States. CERT NZ's latest quarterly update said they'd received reports of $5.8 million of direct financial losses from cyber incidents in the first quarter, and the NCSC says they have prevented $33 million of harm to our economy over the whole of last year. The reality is the true scale of harm to our economy is likely under-reported, and having a single front door that can receive reports and offer help will provide more effective mitigations and better insights for the future. Ibrahim Omer: What will be some of the benefits of having a lead operational cyber-security agency? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Having a merged agency to provide authoritative advice and respond to incidents across every threat level is now international best practice. I point to Canada's Communications Security Establishment as an example of excellence that New Zealand should aspire to. A single front door will ensure that New Zealand is well placed to take advantage of the opportunities in the digital economy and provide secure Government services to our citizens. Ibrahim Omer: What other investments has the Government made to strengthen New Zealand's cyber-security? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Since 2018, this Government has invested $94 million in improved cyber-security capability. We've delivered world-leading protection products, such as Malware Free Networks, to protect internet service providers and private networks; we've rolled out baseline security templates that make it easier for organisations to take advantage of innovative cloud services while better protecting their information; and we're building a secure all-of-Government facility to house protected information at Whenuapai. The threats we're facing are growing, and ongoing attention will be required to mitigate them. Question No. 8—Child Poverty Reduction 8. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction: Does growing up in a benefit-dependent home contribute to child poverty; if so, is she concerned by the increase in children living in benefit-dependent homes under this Government? Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Child Poverty Reduction): A range of factors are associated with the risk of experiencing child poverty over the short and long term. Poverty and living in a benefit-dependent household are correlated, but there is no clear evidence that benefit receipt is causally related to child poverty. I am concerned about any child who lives in poverty, but the Government has a strategy to address the contributing factors and lift children out of poverty, and we are doing just that. Hon Louise Upston: How will the Government reduce the number of children living in poverty when there are now one-in-five New Zealand children growing up in a benefit-dependent home? Hon JAN TINETTI: As the Minister of Child Poverty Reduction, I'm responsible for the Child Poverty Reduction Act that gives effect to a suite of measures and reporting. Before Labour came into office, we had no strategy, no reporting, no measurements, and no appetite to address the causes of child poverty. I'm proud to be part of a Government that has delivered a child poverty reduction strategy to create positive and transformative change, and I am proud to be part of a Government who, through Budget 2023, delivered targeted support to reduce household costs and support children in families that are struggling. Hon Louise Upston: How can she reduce the number of children living in poverty, when there are now over 211,000 children living in benefit-dependent homes, a 39,000 increase since when you took office? Hon JAN TINETTI: Those numbers are portfolio-specific questions for the Minister of Social Development. But what I can tell the member, as the Minister of Child Poverty Reduction, who monitors the data, is that this Government has made historic moves to address child poverty by tackling the causes of deprivation head on. What I can tell that member, too, is that 77,000 fewer children are living in low-income households on the after-housing-costs primary measure since Labour took office, and 28,700 fewer children are experiencing material hardship since 2018. Hon Louise Upston: Will the Minister admit that this record number of children living in benefit-dependent homes just shows how Labour is failing to lift children out of poverty? Hon JAN TINETTI: What I will admit is that eight of the nine child poverty measures have seen statistically significant reductions since 2018, and all nine have reduced. I am proud of the work of this Government in lifting children out of poverty. Question No. 9—Social Development and Employment 9. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree it's unfair that young people on the benefit are eligible for almost $44 less every week than people 25 and up? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes. That is why I have asked the Ministry of Social Development for advice on aligning youth rates of benefits with those of other main benefits. This work is on our medium-term welfare overhaul work programme. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: What is the justification for keeping young people deeper in poverty through lower-income support levels? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I believe it goes back to the 1980s when the decision was made to have a differential rate. That has continued over the decade. There are many policies within the welfare system that go back to the 1980s and 1990s that have not been tackled. This is one that I would like to see us address. It is in the mid-term work programme, as I said, which is one to three years. It's certainly not something that we're going to be able to get on to before the election. Ricardo Menéndez March: What exactly does she need to review in the medium term to realise that it is unfair and we need to bring benefit levels for young people on par with their older peers? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We still need to do the policy work. We still need to receive the advice and make sure that we're looking at all unintended consequences that might come from a policy change. So that work has not started yet. I would like to say, though, that we have seen a significant increase of benefits for all beneficiaries because of the changes that we have made, including the increases. Also, we have seen a significant increase in the support for young people on benefit to actually get into employment. Income support is important, but support for upskilling and training and support into jobs is important as well. So we've been focused on both and we're seeing very positive results with regards to Mana in Mahi, Apprenticeship Boost, He Poutama Rangatahi, Flexi-wage for our young people and we want to continue to invest there. Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she accept it's a political choice to leave this review for the medium term rather than prioritise it and end age-based discrimination once and for all? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: It is a political choice. There is only so much capacity of any Government agency. There is only so much money with regards to what you can budget for. Hon Member: $15 million. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: And so you do need to make choices with respect to what you decide to prioritise. It is certainly one of those areas— Hon Member: St James. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: —that we do want to focus on down the track, and that is why I've signalled it. The other side of the House is yelling out $15 million for the St James Theatre. I do want to remind the other side of the House that that will result in economic benefit, jobs, wellbeing, all of those things. So it's very short-sighted of the other side of the House to think that that doesn't matter in the scheme of things. Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree that for people aged under 24 who receive $44 less each week, that leaves those people more at risk of homelessness, needing to access a hardship grant, or getting into debt due to not being able to cover weekly expenses, and, if so, will she prioritise this review so that young people are not disadvantaged by current policy settings? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I've already said that I do agree that it's unfair and it is an area of work that is on the work programme for the mid-term. If I was to move that forward, that means other areas that I have prioritised would need to move backwards, and I'm not willing to do that. We're not shifting the work programme around here. We need to make sure that we do have a very clear work programme. We've tried to be very public about what that looks like so people know what is coming in the welfare overhaul programme. I agree with the member; it does need to be looked at. I just can't look at it before the election. Question No. 10—Police 10. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A (Labour) to the Minister of Police: What recent milestones have been reached on the roll-out of the Tactical Response Model? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): Earlier this month, I attended the first post-pilot roll-out of the nationwide Tactical Response Model (TRM) in Porirua for the Wellington district. This roll-out carries on the work of ensuring that the Tactical Response Model is available in all of the 12 police districts in New Zealand. The Tactical Response Model ensures our front-line officers have the equipment, the training, and the additional intelligence and support they need to identify and manage those people who present the greatest risk within our communities. As Minister of Police, one of my key priorities is to back our police and ensure they have the rules and the tools to keep our communities safe. That's exactly what the nationwide roll-out of the TRM model helps to achieve. Anahila Kanongata'a: What police districts has the Tactical Response Model rolled out in? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: As already mentioned, I was in Wellington to see the roll-out on 12 July, and the first districts to go live were also rolled out. Last year's successful trial of the TRM was completed in four different police districts: Northland, Counties Manukau, Waikato, and Central. I am pleased to inform the House that since the Prime Minister announced earlier that the TRM will be rolled out nationwide, this model has been rolled out in Northland, Waikato, and in Wellington. Further to that, I'm advised that Southern district will go live later this week, and the Bay of Plenty district will be rolling out next week. Under the current time lines, police expect full nationwide roll-out in all districts by the beginning of September. Anahila Kanongata'a: How has the Government enabled the Tactical Response Model? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The funding for the TRM model began in September 2021, when Cabinet approved $15.5 million to develop the model. Following the initial successes, Cabinet approved a further investment of $62.7 million to trial the Tactical Response Model in four proof-of-concept districts. Cabinet subsequently approved $122.5 million for the nationwide roll-out and ongoing implementation of the Tactical Response Model. Unlike others in the House, when this Government says we're backing the police, we put our money where our mouth is. Anahila Kanongata'a: What feedback has the Minister seen to the roll-out of the Tactical Response Model? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I agree with recent comments from the Police Association President Chris Cahill, who described the value of the national roll-out of the TRM owing to the success of those proof-of-concept districts. Those successes include encouraging results of the trials where there was an estimated reduction of about 40 percent in the use of force events where police were injured by a subject, compared to that experience without the TRM. It keeps our front line safer. I've also heard first-hand from front-line officers who are highly supportive of the model, who have told me that it provides opportunity in their policing careers to focus specifically on targeting high-risk offenders as a tactical response. Unlike others in the House who just talk a big game, we continue to actually deliver and back our police. Hon Mark Mitchell: Does the Minister think that New Zealand is a safer country today than it was six years ago? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I will refer to my full comment: I believe that New Zealand is safer with 1,800 additional police, and I also think that our front line is safer with the Tactical Response Model. Hon Mark Mitchell: So is the Minister saying, then, that with the additional 1,530 front-line police officers that New Zealand today is a safer country than it was six years ago? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The ability for our front line to respond quickly to urgent issues is advanced by the fact that we have more police out there doing their jobs each day that are resourced, and we also have the assets of the Tactical Response Model that combine risk assessment as well as intelligence and kit to make sure that police on the front line respond quickly and also proportionately to risk. Question No. 11—Corrections 11. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by his statement, "we have safely reduced the prison population"; if so, why? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Corrections: In the context in which it was made, yes. When we became Government, there was a prison population crisis. There were approximately 11,000 people in prison, and there was talk of triple-bunking, beds in hallways, and repurposing old boarding houses. Those options were not safe for communities or for Corrections staff. Corrections does not decide who is sent to prison or for how long; their contribution to the reduction of the population is through improving the efficiency and administration of processes. As a Government, we have not significantly changed sentencing laws, except for removing the flawed three-strikes, because there was no real evidence that it increased public safety. Hon Mark Mitchell: What is the Minister's definition of "safely"? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I encourage the member to pick up a dictionary. Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I know what the definition of "safely" is. I'm asking the Minister what her definition of "safely" is. That was the question. SPEAKER: It is an answer. This is not quiz time; it's question time. Question No. 12—Commerce and Consumer Affairs 12. Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What action is the Government taking to ensure Kiwi consumers are treated fairly by their banks, insurers, and credit unions? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Well, this week, the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) opened for applications from financial institutions to become licensed. All registered banks, insurers, and non-bank deposit takers such as credit unions will need to become licensed to provide financial services to consumers and have a fair conduct programme. It covers about 100 institutions in all. They have until 31 March 2025, when the regime comes into effect, to get their new fair conduct programmes up and running. Hon Phil Twyford: Where has the decision to require financial institutions to be licensed come from? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Since 2019, the Financial Markets Authority, working with the Reserve Bank, have reviewed the culture and conduct of banks and insurers. This showed institutions were not doing enough to put systems in place to ensure customers were treated fairly. The conduct of financial institutions Act was passed in 2022, which puts consumers at the forefront of institutions' decisions and actions. This Act requires licensing for institutions providing financial services to consumers. Hon Phil Twyford: What principles underpin the new conduct requirements? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Firms selling financial products will need to adhere to a new fair conduct principle by establishing a fair conduct programme within their organisation. Fair conduct principles will apply in the design of financial products at the point of sale, during claims or complaints, and throughout the life cycle of a product. Hon Phil Twyford: What is at the heart of the fair conduct principle? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Putting consumers' interests first is at the heart of the principle. It's the right product for the right person at the right time that should govern how a product is sold and to whom, not an incentive for a salesperson. The Government continues to make progress on protecting consumers of financial products, and I thank the FMA for their leadership in this area. SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. Would some honourable member care to move— Question No. 3 to Minister—Amended Answer Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): Point of order. I seek leave to correct an answer. SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Hon DAVID PARKER: In respect of my answer to a supplementary question on Question 3, when I referred to the select committee consideration of congestion charging, I was referring to the Transport and Infrastructure select committee inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland that was presented to the House in 2021, not the resultant bill.