Thursday, 27 July 2023 [Volume 769] The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS Hon JENNY SALESA (Assistant 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.] BUSINESS STATEMENT Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Leader of the House: Next week, the committee stage of the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill will begin. This is the Estimates debate. There will be appearances by the Ministers of Education, Finance, Health, Housing, Social Development and Employment, Police, and Transport. Other legislation to be considered will include the second readings of the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3), and the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill. There will be extended sittings of the House on the morning of Wednesday, 2 August for members' business, and on the morning of Thursday, 3 August for Government business. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the "Acting Acting Leader of the House" for her update on next week. We are making some progress on the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill. These are very important to the Government. Can she confirm whether or not there will be further progress next week, and, if not, that the Government does not intend to take urgency to advance that after the next recess week? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Minister for Economic Development): If the committee stages are not completed today, they will continue next week. Third readings will not take place. The Business Committee will be informed of any plans for urgency in advance. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of Bronwen Jones requesting that the House amend the Dietary Supplements Regulations 1985 to allow manufacture or import of Bariatric Strength Supplements for Bariatric Surgery patients petition of Kristine Hayward requesting that the House urge the Government to implement a centrally funded and administered risk-adapted early prostate cancer detection strategy. SPEAKER: Those petitions are referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the 2023/24 Estimates for Education Sector Votes report of the Environment Committee 2023/24 Estimates for Vote Environment reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the: 2023/24 Estimates for Vote Audit 2023/24 Estimates for Vote Finance, Fiscal Strategy Report 2023, and Budget Economic and Fiscal Update 2023 Taxation Principles Reporting Bill reports of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the: 2023/24 Estimates for Vote Customs 2023/24 Estimates for Foreign Affairs Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill reports of the Governance and Administration Committee on the: 2023/24 Estimates for Vote Internal Affairs (Excluding the Supporting Ethnic Communities and Community Development and Funding Schemes appropriations) 2023/24 Estimates for Vote Office of the Clerk and Vote Parliamentary Service 2023/24 Estimates for Vote Ombudsmen 2023/24 Estimates for Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet 2023/24 Estimates for Vote Public Service (Excluding the Supporting Implementation of a Social Wellbeing Approach appropriations) 2023/24 Estimates for Vote Statistics Water Services Entities Amendment Bill reports of the Māori Affairs Committee on the: 2023/24 Estimates for Vote Māori Development 2023/24 Estimates for Vote Te Arawhiti report of the Primary Production Committee on the 2023/24 Estimates for Vote Agriculture, Biosecurity, Fisheries and Food Safety reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the: 2023/24 Estimates for appropriation within Vote Public Service: Supporting Implementation of a Social Wellbeing Approach 2023/24 Estimates for Vote Sport and Recreation reports of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the: 2023/24 Estimates for Vote Building and Construction 2023/24 Estimates for Vote Transport. SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills. CLERK: Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Provision of Breast Cancer Screening Services) Amendment Bill introduction New Zealand Bill of Rights (Right to Lawfully Acquired Property) Amendment Bill introduction District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill introduction. SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Foreign Affairs 1. DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What is the significance of the US Secretary of State's visit to New Zealand in terms of bilateral relations? Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): The visit by US Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, marks a significant milestone in our bilateral relations. The US is one of our closest friends, and our meeting underscores the longstanding partnership between our two nations, grounded in common interests and a shared commitment to liberal democracy and the rule of law. The visit is significant in the context of global diplomacy. At a time when the world is grappling with a host of challenges including conflict, climate change, and economic recovery, this visit emphasises the importance of working even closer together. It signals our mutual readiness to collaborate and contribute constructively to the international rules-based system. Dan Rosewarne: How does the Minister perceive the role of the United States in further engaging economically in the Indo-Pacific region? Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The US plays a significant role in the economic dynamics of the Indo-Pacific region. We discussed the potential for the US to increase its economic engagement in the region, which we believe could greatly contribute to the regional stability and prosperity of our Pacific region. This can be accomplished through more extensive trade relations, investment in infrastructure, and by supporting regional economic integration initiatives. We see a significant opportunity for the US to contribute positively to the economic development of our region, and the signal of that intent is through the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity that New Zealand is participating in, along with a number of other economies. Dan Rosewarne: How will New Zealand and the United States address the regional challenges identified by Pacific leaders, especially with respect to climate change? Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: New Zealand and the US discussed our common goal of supporting a peaceful, stable, prosperous, and resilient Pacific region. This was a major topic in our conversation. Climate change is, of course, by definition of Pacific partners, the greatest threat facing the Pacific, and both our countries are committed to helping address this. Our climate finance initiatives are targeted to enhance the resilience of the Pacific, and we're guided by Pacific partner priorities when delivering on this commitment. We're also mindful of the very real challenges of ensuring resilient infrastructure, connectivity, energy, and food security, as they are often areas impacted by climate change and felt by our Pacific partners more than most. Question No. 2—Prime Minister 2. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions on tax policy? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. Nicola Willis: Does he agree with Grant Robertson's statement two months ago that taking GST off food would mostly benefit supermarkets? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I always agree with the Minister of Finance. Nicola Willis: Does he agree with Grant Robertson, who said that introducing exemptions to GST "becomes an absolute boondoggle to get through"? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I said, I always agree with the Minister of Finance. Nicola Willis: Was the Minister of Finance correct when he said that removing GST from fresh fruit or vegetables would mean "you get into an argument of what's the difference between beetroot and canned beetroot, and if you want to make a real impact for the lowest income people you wouldn't cut the tax off fresh beetroot"? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Minister of Finance is a very intelligent man, and he is always willing to explore different areas and has very important insights into tax. Nicola Willis: Was David Parker, his former Minister of Revenue, correct when he said, as reported in 2013, that removing GST from fruit and vegetables "would have opened exploitable and confusing loopholes, and dirtied an otherwise clean tax."? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The previous Minister of Revenue, Minister Parker, has always been honest with his view. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can he stand by ruling out a wealth or capital gains tax when report after report has highlighted fundamental unfairness in the tax system, including that the average person in Aotearoa is paying 20.2 percent in tax, while the wealthy are only paying 9.4 percent? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: On behalf of the Prime Minister, we've been very clear that the economic conditions do not allow for the proposed taxes that the member is asking about. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why will he not shift the tax burden from the poor to the wealthy through reforming income tax settings and implementing a net wealth tax when, as Te Paati Māori has shown in our policy announcement today, it could raise the incomes of 98 percent of whānau while still providing greater than $16 billion in surplus revenue to address inequities in health, education, housing, justice, climate, and welfare? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: On behalf of the Prime Minister, we've been very clear about the economic conditions and the certainty that New Zealanders need right now. Nicola Willis: Does he agree with the findings of Grant Robertson's tax working group that removing GST from food and drink would provide a greater absolute benefit to higher-income households than lower-income households and would generate extremely large compliance and administration costs? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There were lots of findings by the tax working group and we appreciate their insights, and that certainly informs our thinking. Nicola Willis: Will he rule out a tax policy of removing GST from fruit and vegetables? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We're not going to play the "rule in, rule out" game on tax. We have not announced our tax policy, except to say that we will not be introducing a wealth or capital gains tax. Rawiri Waititi: Is he then saying that he is comfortable with assets and wealth remaining untaxed, enabling the rich to continue to get even richer while ordinary people subsidise their "extravagant lifestyles" through tax policy? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: No. On behalf of the Prime Minister, what is being said is that the economic conditions are not suitable for the changes that the member is recommending right now and that New Zealanders need certainty. But, on behalf of the Prime Minister, we are very much focused on the bread and butter issues and the things that matter to New Zealanders right now. Nicola Willis: Would he consider a wealth tax if economic conditions changed? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We're not going to get into hypothetical situations right now. Question No. 3—Women 3. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister for Women: How is the Government delivering for women? Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Women): The Government is delivering on our ongoing commitment to creating a fairer, safer, and more equitable future for women and girls. We are ensuring labour-market outcomes are fairer, women are recognised for their ability, and ensuring that Government investment is improving outcomes for women and whānau. Investment into areas such as childcare assistance, KiwiSaver for women on paid parental leave, and training and employment pathways provides women and their whānau with the support they need now, and the support and opportunities to thrive and get ahead. Angela Roberts: How is the Government helping to deliver better labour-market outcomes for women? Hon JAN TINETTI: Our early childhood education (ECE) policy extending 20 hours free ECE to two-year-olds significantly reduces the cost of early childhood education for parents. It also allows parents to return to work, or take on more hours if they can. We've also invested $35.2 million into childcare assistance to expand eligibility, duration, and improve access for families. These investments increase eligibility and will help approximately 30,000 women currently accessing childcare assistance. We're implementing the Women's Employment Action Plan, and we have passed fair pay agreements. This is on top of 10 settled pay equity claims that have corrected the pay for over 110,000 employees—with the average pay correction being 32.4 percent—and the ongoing work to progress the 27 active claims across the economy. Angela Roberts: How is the Government supporting women in leadership? Hon JAN TINETTI: The Government has made a sustained and conscious effort to develop leadership and ensure that talented women are not overlooked for leadership roles. Representation on public boards is at a record level, and the Government's target of 50 percent representation for women has been met for the last three years, and 41.9 percent of board chair roles are held by women. The Ministry for Women have also established leadership learning hubs that show a range of courses and resources for women to grow their leadership and governance skills, and has a nomination service to promote candidates for board vacancies. Angela Roberts: How is the Government investing in women? Hon JAN TINETTI: Budget 2023 saw expanded gender budgeting, a powerful tool to help understand how Government spending and initiatives will impact people differently depending on their gender. This allows us to invest in programmes that we know will make a difference for women. The Training Incentive Allowance—with an investment of $80.1 million over four years to support sole parents, disabled people, and their carers to study towards higher-level qualifications—is a good example. Since 2021, 90 percent of those who received this allowance were women. Supporting women into higher education and higher-paid employment helps reduce gender pay gaps and creates intergenerational benefits. Question No. 4—Foreign Affairs 4. GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Is she confident that the Government's consideration of joining AUKUS Pillar Two is aligned with its stated independent and Pacific-centric foreign policy stance? Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Yes. To be clear: New Zealand is not a party to AUKUS. In so far as Pillar Two arrangements are concerned, at an officials' level they are exploring the non-nuclear aspects of those arrangements, but let me again be clear: no commitment has been made. Golriz Ghahraman: Is she concerned that cooperation under the so-called Pillar Two of AUKUS by New Zealand undermines the sovereignty of Pacific Island nations and will lead to the militarisation of the Pacific? Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: No, the assurance that has been sought by the Pacific is that the AUKUS arrangements comply with the Treaty of Rarotonga. New Zealand's position on a nuclear-free Pacific has not changed, and the assurance sought by Pacific partners is one that New Zealand endorses in order to protect their sovereign interests. Teanau Tuiono: Does she stand by her statement that amplifying the Pacific voice and the impact of climate change on Pacific peoples is a key priority for New Zealand; and, if so, does she think that joining AUKUS Pillar Two would be a significant departure from New Zealand's previous priorities in the Pacific? Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I absolutely stand by my comments because New Zealand has long acknowledged that, for the Pacific, the greatest existential threat to their security is climate change. We know that by doing more in this area their sovereign interests can be protected within the region. AUKUS Pillar Two arrangements and the way in which New Zealand is investigating whether there is a potential benefit to the region is based on the non-nuclear aspects of that. So that would be compliant with the Treaty of Rarotonga. Teanau Tuiono: How can she claim that Aotearoa is focused on the interests of the Pacific in addressing security issues in our region when she has held six times as many meetings with Australia, US, and UK officials about New Zealand's potential membership of AUKUS than with Pacific Island counterparts? Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: To the first part of that question, we undertake diplomatic dialogue with a range of partners within our region, but, importantly, with the Pacific, we are a member of the Pacific Islands Forum. We hear their primary concern in terms of climate change being a challenge for their security and sovereign interests in the region. We are working hard to ensure that our investments, particularly in terms of climate finance, rallies towards the aspirations of the Pacific, and that is how we are being responsive as a partner to support Pacific aspirations in the region. Teanau Tuiono: Then how can she be confident that involvement in AUKUS would not compromise New Zealand's commitments to nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament in the Pacific when it is part of a security and defence agreement with nuclear powers? Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Thank you for the question, because the clarification is very important: New Zealand has not agreed to participate in either the primary set of arrangements or Pillar Two. Being able to investigate what the potential opportunity is doesn't translate as agreeing to them. The reason why we do that is because we understand just how important it is to maintain our nuclear-free position, to uphold our responsibilities in relation to the Treaty of Rarotonga, and to be a country—the only country—that has a separate portfolio for the non-proliferation and disarmament of nuclear weapons, not only within our region but across the world. And that is consistent with Pacific aspirations. Golriz Ghahraman: Can she confirm that this Government remains committed to the ban on cluster munitions, and, if so, did she raise this in discussions with the US Secretary of State in relation to conversations about regional Pacific security? Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Thank you for the question. Yes, I did raise this issue in particular reference to the situation with Russia and Ukraine, and while New Zealand supports Ukraine in its defence against Russia's illegal war of aggression, Russia and Ukraine, as parties to the armed conflict, must comply with international humanitarian law. Any use of cluster munitions must be in accordance with these rules. Unlike New Zealand, neither Russia, Ukraine, or the US are party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions. The convention explicitly prohibits the use of cluster munitions, and our position on these inhumane, indiscriminate weapons is clear: we're determined to put an end for all time to the suffering and casualties they cause. We're unafraid to express our view on the use of cluster munitions. We are opposed to any developments that increase the likelihood of cluster munitions being used in any conflict. And we have an obligation, under article 21 of the convention, to pursue universal adherence to it and to promote the norms of the convention. Question No. 5—Transport 5. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Transport: What are his priorities as Minister of Transport? Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): My priorities in the transport portfolio are many, but I have a strong focus on road maintenance and congestion. After nine years of the prior Government underfunding maintenance and the resealing of State highways, this Government has delivered the largest investment in road maintenance and resealing ever. But the quality of our roads is still not up to scratch, and one of my priorities is to improve the condition of our highways. I'm also prioritising working closely with the Mayor of Auckland to sort out Auckland's transport priorities. Simeon Brown: Is it the Government's priority to deliver a $30 billion Auckland Light Rail, and, if so, when will construction start, if ever? Hon DAVID PARKER: Final decisions on Auckland Light Rail haven't been taken, and I'm not expecting them to be taken until after the election. Simeon Brown: Now that the Minister has more time to focus on transport, will he stop forcing local councils to reduce speed limits on local roads, as promised by the Prime Minister when he chucked speed limit reductions on the policy bonfire earlier this year? Hon DAVID PARKER: The member will be interested to know that that falls within the delegation of the Hon Damien O'Connor. [Interruption] I think that might be a signal. Simeon Brown: Can the Minister name one major new roading project that was started and completed under this Government, and, if not, are roads not a priority for this Government? Hon DAVID PARKER: I would test the patience of the House if I read these very long lists. I know that my predecessor, the Hon Michael Wood, often did it. I'm sure that if the member, you know, opened his ears, he would have already heard the answers. The other thing I would say is, in respect of the member's alternative, he doesn't have a plan—he's got a series of unfunded, un-costed announcements. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. The fact that a list, in the Minister's eyes, is so long should not take away from his obligation to address the question, which is perhaps to give us one or two of— SPEAKER: Yeah, you shouldn't take a point of order like that with a narrative. Get to the point of order, and it is— Hon Michael Woodhouse: The point is he hasn't addressed the question. SPEAKER: No, he will sit down now because it has been addressed—quite clearly addressed. Hon Damien O'Connor: As he was taking on the portfolio, in his briefings, was there any reference to a "sweat the assets" policy, and, if so, is that still the policy that is in place by the Ministry of Transport or Waka Kotahi? Hon DAVID PARKER: What was in the briefings were graphs of the required level of State highway resurfacing in order to maintain the quality of the State highway network. The briefings given to me said that resurfacing needs to cover about 9 percent of the roads per annum so that they don't crack up and become full of potholes. On the nine years prior to 2017, road resurfacing dropped from 9 percent to 5 percent. Simeon Brown: Can he confirm that Let's Get Wellington Moving has spent over $59 million on consultants, compared to just $4.7 million on construction, and is it his priority to get Wellington moving or consulting? Hon DAVID PARKER: I don't have that number before me, but it is correct that we don't have a "Ministry of Works" in New Zealand, and every road that is built in New Zealand is designed by consultants who are called "engineers", is consented by consultants who are called "planners", and is built by contractors who are called "Fulton Hogan, Downer Group, and others". Question No. 6—Health 6. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister of Health: Fa'afetai lava, Mr Speaker. What is the Government doing to improve the mental health and wellbeing of New Zealanders? Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health)): on behalf of the Minister of Health: This Government has made it a priority to improve the mental health and wellbeing of New Zealanders like the many college students in the gallery today. We are building primary care mental health services from the ground up. By the end of May, these services provide coverage of an enrolled population of 3 million New Zealanders, and have delivered over 944,000 sessions. We've also launched wellbeingsupport.health.nz to connect people with these free primary mental health and addiction services. Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How is the Government growing the mental health workforce? Hon PEENI HENARE: There has been an increase of 713 psychologists, and a tripling of clinical psychology internships since 2017. We have also grown the number of fully funded new entry to specialist practice places for nurses from 160 in 2019 to 282 available this year. Te Whatu Ora has also invested to deliver 80 new addiction workforce and gambling harm scholarships over the next two years. The scholarships enable students to undertake tertiary study to help them enter the addiction workforce. This programme aligns with our strategy to prevent and minimise gambling harm by investing in developing a skilled, enabled, culturally safe, and responsive workforce. Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How has the Government supported the mental wellbeing of people effected by recent severe weather events? Hon PEENI HENARE: A multimedia campaign, "All Sorts" delivered by the Mental Health Foundation was quickly stood up to proactively promote and distribute information about available mental wellbeing support and resources to cyclone-affected regions. I am advised Te Whatu Ora contacted mental health service providers in cyclone-impacted areas to see if they were affected, and whether they had capacity to cope with a potentially increasing workload. As a result, in Hawke's Bay, additional mental health professionals from other parts of the country were deployed to provide on-the-ground support to communities in the immediate period after the cyclone. This included health improvement practitioners working in general practices in other parts of the country. Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What did the Budget 2023 North Island weather events package deliver for mental health initiatives? Hon PEENI HENARE: This Government has extended the peer support Warmline component of 1737. This is particularly beneficial for people living in rural areas who may otherwise need to travel for face-to-face support. Additional funding has been made available to Youthline. Funding has been allocated to Te Tairāwhiti, Hawke's Bay, Te Tai Tokerau, and Tāmaki Makaurau for local community mental wellbeing recovery initiatives. Funding has been made available to develop specific rain anxiety content in the Mental Health 101, Addiction 101, and Rural Mental Health 101 training programmes. This training will be made available to those working with impacted people and whānau across these regions. This will then be promoted heavily in the most impacted of areas. Mana Ake, the primary and intermediate school-based mental wellbeing programme, will be rolled out to all Hawke's Bay and Tairāwhiti primary and intermediate schools to support children from the beginning of 2024. Question No. 7—Immigration 7. Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT) to the Minister of Immigration: What is the total investment value of all Investor 1 and 2 applications that are currently with Immigration New Zealand, if any, and how does that figure compare to the total unweighted investment value of Active Investor Plus visa applications? Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister of Immigration) on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Investor 1 and 2 application regimes have been replaced by the Active Investor Plus Visa. The previous scheme was successful in attracting high volumes of funds. However, they resulted often in passive investment in shares and bonds rather than directly into New Zealand companies, which provided only a limited economic benefit to New Zealand. This new Active Investor Plus Visa incentivises applicants to invest more directly into New Zealand businesses, providing the opportunity for investors to connect with them and access global knowledge networks, capitals, and markets. To answer the member's question, the new Active Investor Plus Visa has had 30 applications since its launch on 19 September 2022, with three now approved and more approved in principle. The estimated unweighted value of the 27 applications currently being processed is $405 million. Immigration New Zealand currently has 163 Investor 1 and 355 Investor 2 applications being processed, with a total estimated proposed value of $2.695 billion. In the first year of the Investor 1 policy, which was 2009, there were only five applications; after two years, there were only 19. Active Investor Plus applications since September 2022 are 30 in total. Dr James McDowall: Is he aware that under Labour, over $1.5 billion worth of investment has been withdrawn by people who gave up waiting for Immigration New Zealand to process their Investor 1 and 2 applications, and, if so, what work, if any, is being done to follow up on those people to try to get them back under the new regime? Hon RACHEL BROOKING: On behalf of the Minister, the point of the change to the active investment category is to get more relationships with New Zealand businesses to help the economy. SPEAKER: I'll ask the member to ask the question again. I don't think it was addressed, particularly the first part—if you want to ask it again. Dr James McDowall: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It read: is he aware that under Labour, over $1.5 billion worth of investment has been withdrawn by people who gave up waiting for Immigration New Zealand to process their Investor 1 and 2 applications, and, if so, what work, if any, is being done to follow up on those people to try to get them back under the new regime? Hon RACHEL BROOKING: To the first part of the question, I'm not aware of that number. Dr James McDowall: Does he agree with his predecessor's response to me during question time on 29 March that the Active Investor Plus Visa will "direct investment into areas that will actually deliver jobs"?, and, if so, how many jobs have actually been created by the three applications approved since the visa was launched in September last year? Hon RACHEL BROOKING: On behalf of the Minister, to the first part of the question, yes. Question No. 8—Revenue 8. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of Revenue: Does she support a wealth tax, and does she support the principles contained within the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Minister of Revenue): No, and yes. Andrew Bayly: Will she rule out requesting or commissioning any work from the IRD on introducing or implementing a capital gains tax or wealth tax while she is the Minister of Revenue, or at least while the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins remains as Prime Minister? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: The Prime Minister has made his view very clear. We are not going to introduce a wealth tax or a capital gains tax, and therefore I will not be working on one. Andrew Bayly: Does she accept New Zealand's tax system has been underpinned by the principle of having a broad-based, low-rate taxation system, and does she propose to change that approach? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: I do believe that New Zealand does have a broad-based, low-rate system, and what I do believe is that the tax system should be aligned with the recognised principles contained in the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill. Andrew Bayly: How does she define "economic income", as has been inserted in the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill by her predecessor, and how does that definition differ from taxable income? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: I understand the Finance and Expenditure Committee reported back the bill to the House today. I thank them for that work. My understanding is there is no economic income definition in the interpretation part of that bill. However, I am willing to take time to consider the report back by the Finance and Expenditure Committee and will respond in due course. Andrew Bayly: Does she believe that the term "economic income" proposed in the Government's Taxation Principles Reporting Bill includes the concept of a tax on unrealised capital gains, such as someone's KiwiSaver account or house? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: The current bill doesn't propose any tax. Again, it provides principles in which tax policy can be designed in the framework. Question No. 9—Justice 9. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Justice: How has the Government enabled communities and hospitality businesses to get behind the men's Rugby World Cup later this year? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Justice): Last week, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Act passed its third reading with strong support across the House. We know that it has been a tough year, indeed, for hospitality businesses, and these sensible, practical changes to the law will help them to maximise their benefits and make it easier for fans and communities to come together to back the All Blacks. By passing the bill now, businesses will have plenty of time to plan before the All Blacks open the tournament against the host, France, on 9 September. Marja Lubeck: Why are these changes necessary? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: These changes allow businesses to remain open outside of normal trading hours when televising live the men's Rugby World Cup matches, and it saves businesses from having to go through the usual special licence process. We've designed these changes to strike a good balance between ensuring that licence holders have the support and the abilities they need to support communities, as well as celebrating the All Blacks' victories, with the need to minimise any potential harm. The Rugby World Cup is one of the most significant events in the rugby calendar and it's a special time for fans to come together. I'm looking forward to getting behind the boys in black when the tournament kicks off in September. Marja Lubeck: How will the changes ensure a safe environment for fans? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Licence holders will be required to give at least seven days' written notice to police and their local council if they want to open for matches. This provision is designed to enhance public safety and ensure police have the information so they can deploy resources effectively. The bill sets clear eligibility criteria and extends trading hours that are only available to current on-licence and club licence holders whose licences have not been varied or suspended over the last year. We have learnt from previous amendments, and this year's bill requires record-keeping to make sure we measure the impact of the changes for similar events in the future. Marja Lubeck: What do the changes allow licence holders to do? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Eligible on-licence and club licence holders can extend their trading hours to televise games from the Rugby World Cup 2023 without applying for a special licence. If a licence holder has notified that they intend to open for a game for the venue, it can be open for one hour before the game or extend their hours under certain circumstances. The venue must close for the sale of alcohol 30 minutes after the end of the game. These changes provide licence holders with certainty and flexibility to support their communities to be able to cheer on the All Blacks in a safe environment. Go the All Blacks. Question No. 10—Education 10. PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Education: Does she consider the $65 million of Vote Tertiary Education funding allocated to set up the six workforce development councils (WDCs) has provided good value for money? Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Workforce development councils are statutory bodies established in 2021 and play a crucial role in building links between industry and education providers to help keep curriculums and courses aligned with the development of industry needs. If the member is asking whether I think establishing organisations in the regions to match sector and industry needs with quality educational pathways is worthy of funding, then yes, I do. Penny Simmonds: Does the Minister consider it's a good use of taxpayer money to pay a WDC chief executive $128,000 worth of discretionary leave as reward for excessive spending of taxpayer money on such things as meals of lobster, alcohol, and taxis in Sydney? Hon JAN TINETTI: As Minister, I have no involvement in WDCs' relationships with employees, so cannot comment. As public entities, WDCs are expected to use public money wisely and maintain appropriate standards as employers. I'm advised the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) is closely monitoring the performance of the particular WDC that the member is alluding to. Penny Simmonds: Does the Minister think that a WDC board spending $194,646 to deal with the chief executive who spent $72,000 on the WDC's Visa card in his first year, over double what all five other WDC chief executive spent in total, is a good use of taxpayer money? Hon JAN TINETTI: The WDCs as statutory bodies are meeting their requirements under the Education and Training Act and getting on with the job that they were established to do. I haven't been advised of performance or financial issues at any of the WDCs that requires ministerial intervention. The TEC monitors the performance of WDCs against the expectations laid out in legislation. It also monitors their financial sustainability. WDCs are also subject to audit by the Auditor-General. Penny Simmonds: Does the Minister think the hundreds of staff being made redundant in the tertiary sector will be pleased or angry about the hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars being wasted on meals of lobster and alcohol, legal fees, gardening leave, and, finally, a settlement pay-out to a WDC chief executive who has been in the job less than two years? Hon JAN TINETTI: As I've said, as Minister I do not speak to employment issues. Question No. 11—Economic Development 11. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister for Economic Development: How does the new Aerospace Strategy support Government goals for a high-wage, low-emissions economy? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Minister for Economic Development): The launch of this country's first ever Aerospace Strategy marks a significant milestone. It delivers on two years of close work between Government, industry, iwi, and other communities. It reflects broader plans for a high-wage, low-emissions economy that guarantees economic security for all. Government has a critical role to play to unlock the potential of the aerospace sector. The sector has made clear that we should continue to provide the leadership needed for it to thrive and retain innovators. Naisi Chen: What is the estimated value of the aerospace sector and its future opportunities? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: The New Zealand space economy is estimated to be worth more than $1.7 billion. An increasing number of commercial space and advanced aviation companies are launching, flying, manufacturing, and operating here. There's also an increasing market for downstream products and services using the data generated by aerospace technologies. The value of the wider sector, such as design, engineering, and technical services and manufacturing is even higher. The global aerospace sector is growing fast and is estimated to be worth over $600 billion annually. Naisi Chen: Is the strategy and action plan supported by funding? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: When we launched the strategy last week, I was able to confirm funding of up to $12 million to support the next steps. This is on top of $15.7 million in funding announced last year to support the implementation of the Aerospace Strategy. This funding will be prioritised for education initiatives, research and development partnerships, and further research into the potential of the sector. Naisi Chen: What actions does the strategy outline for the Government and the sector? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: The strategy outlines three pillars as the foundation for future collaboration between Government and the aerospace sector. The focus areas are unlocking aerospace potential by creating strong economic foundations, a future-facing Government through greater alignments between Government and the industry, and the idea of an aerospace nation which requires stronger engagement and marketing to the world. Question No. 12—Cyclone Recovery 12. CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi) to the Minister for Cyclone Recovery: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions in the six months since the Auckland Anniversary weekend flooding events and in the wake of Cyclone Gabrielle? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Minister for Cyclone Recovery) on behalf of the Minister for Cyclone Recovery: Yes, I do stand by my statements and actions in relation to the Auckland anniversary weekend flooding events and Cyclone Gabrielle in the context in which they were given. These events represent the second-largest natural disaster experienced in New Zealand, behind only the Canterbury earthquakes in terms of damage and cost. The approach we have taken through the North Island weather events has always been one that is locally led with the support of the Government. Chris Penk: Does he stand by his statement, then, "It's worth noting that, after the Canterbury earthquakes, it was four months before decisions were taken on the future of affected areas. We want to move quicker than that." given that it has now been six months since the initial flooding events? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: On behalf of the Minister, I always stand by my statements, and we are working together with councils on cost-sharing arrangements to buy out high-risk properties, and we expect to say more on that soon. Chris Penk: Of the hundreds of displaced residents in Auckland, how many have received a categorisation of their home? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Under the use of land provisions in the law, that is actually a decision for the Auckland Council, and I do not have those figures on me, as they are subject to Auckland Council. If you would like to put them in writing, we will respond accordingly. Chris Penk: Of the following Ministers who were appointed as regional leads for cyclone recovery, which of these still holds this role: Stuart Nash, Meka Whaitiri, Michael Wood, Kiritapu Allan, and Nanaia Mahuta? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: We have a number of great Ministers on this side of the House. On behalf of Minister Robertson, we have the associate cyclone recovery Minister, the Hon Barbara Edmonds. We have the Hon Kieran McAnulty. And I could provide a number of other lists of MPs in particular who have been working hard on the ground to support their affected communities. Chris Penk: Point of order. My question was in relation to those whom I named very specifically. SPEAKER: Yeah, and the question was addressed. That concludes oral questions. PRIVILEGE Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee—Disclosure of Outcome of Vote Taken During the Environment Committee's Consideration of a Bill Hon David Parker (Chairperson of the Privileges Committee): I move, That the report of the Privileges Committee concerning a member's disclosure of the outcome of a vote taken during the Environment Committee's consideration of a bill be noted. The Privileges Committee report on this issue has been presented to the House and is on the floor for members to see. Those who read it will see that the Privileges Committee found that the complaint in respect of disclosure of the outcome of a vote taken during the Environment Committee's consideration of a bill was upheld. I'll go through a bit more of the detail in a second. The committee also, whilst not wanting to minimise the transgression, didn't think that the matter was so serious as to warrant a widespread debate in the House, and so recommended to the Business Committee that we didn't think a debate was necessary. The Business Committee said findings of the Privileges Committee are always important and ought to be brought to the attention of all members so that we avoid those sorts of errors being repeated in the future, and then requested that I, as the chair of the Privileges Committee, take a single call on the matter in order to describe the events that we reported to the House upon. The Speaker made a reference to the Privileges Committee as a consequence of a complaint from the Hon Eugenie Sage to the Speaker about Simon Court having released the outcome of a vote during the consideration by the select committee of an item of business before them, which was the consideration of the Natural and Built Environment Bill. There was a closed session, and during the session the member formally proposed that a definition of a term be inserted into the bill. That motion was voted down, and then the member, by press release, disclosed that. The matter was initially referred to the Speaker by the Hon Eugenie Sage. She also said she was going to try and sort it out at select committee at a subsequent meeting. She tried to; the member didn't back down or apologise and stuck to his guns, and therefore the Hon Eugenie Sage wrote another letter of complaint to the Speaker and the Speaker referred it to the Privileges Committee. The Privileges Committee found it an easy matter to deal with because there was prior guidance from both earlier Privileges Committees hearings but also from a consideration of Standing Orders that had been conducted by the Standing Orders Committee in 2003. It was clear that Standing Order 243 applies, which says that "The proceedings of a select committee or a subcommittee other than during the hearing of evidence are not open to the public and remain strictly confidential to the committee until it reports to the House." The matter really was as simple as it sounds, although there is the occasional clarification of that in the 2003 report of the Standing Orders Committee. For example, if there is a proposal to change the chair or deputy chair of a select committee, that business is, effectively, concluded by the passing of the motion and therefore can be disclosed. But if there is continuing business before the select committee, then that is part of the confidential proceedings that ought not to be disclosed until the committee reports back to the House. The reasons for this were set out in the Standing Orders Committee report in 2003, and, in summary, select committees are required to inform the House first of their findings—and it's for the select committee to do that, not for individual members of the committee. Secondly, the ability to discuss issues in confidence promotes constructive dialogue between committee members about legislation and other parliamentary business. We are a unicameral legislature. We are reliant upon select committees doing their best to improve legislation before it, and one of the good things about our select committee model is that, generally, members from all parties cooperate to try and improve legislation at select committee even if they don't agree with it. So we've got to encourage that habit, and that is undermined if individual members of select committee, for reasons of political advantage, can whip out of the select committee and breach the confidentiality. Closed sessions enable the provision of free and frank advice to the committee—that includes from officials—and premature or selective release of committee proceedings increases the risks of lobbying outside normal processes or giving advantage to particular groups or persons. The committee in recent weeks has endorsed those views, found that these considerations remain of the utmost importance today and any breach undermines the integrity of select committee processes. So the findings of the committee were to concur with the Speaker's assessment of the member's actions. We found that the member's starting point should've been to be aware of the Standing Order. If the member Simon Court was unaware of it or unclear, he should've approached the clerk of the committee. When the matter was raised with him by the Hon Eugenie Sage, he should at that stage have read the Standing Order or consulted with the Clerk of the House or the clerk of the standing committee. We noted that it's the sole responsibility of each member to exercise caution in their public statements and ensure that the important rules against inappropriate and unauthorised disclosure of select committee proceedings are observed. In conclusion, the committee noted that the member has apologised for the matter and did not recommend any further action. We were grateful to the Speaker for having referred the question of privileges to us and emphasise that it's a timely opportunity to reinforce to all members the expectations that apply to the confidentiality of select committee proceedings and the reasons that they exist. Motion agreed to. SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill.