Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

In its report on the New Zealand economy this week, Westpac’s economists are forecasting that trading-partner growth will decline from 4.2 percent to 3.5 percent in 2023. The Australian economy is set to slow sharply in 2023, while Chinese economic activity is likely to be constricted by ongoing COVID restrictions. Westpac also notes that the impact of slow trading-partner growth on New Zealand’s prospects will be partly offset by a lower New Zealand dollar, global food supply constraints, and a rebound in tourist numbers. We know that 2023 is going to be a tough year for the global economy, and, inevitably, this affects New Zealand’s prospects. However, New Zealand is in a strong starting point to deal with these challenges, with unemployment near record lows, wages rising faster than inflation, growing exports, and tourists returning in greater numbers.

Shanan Halbert: What other reports has he seen on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Activity in the manufacturing sector declined in October. The seasonally adjusted BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Manufacturing Index was down 2.4 percent to 49.3. This is the lowest level of activity since August 2021.

Shanan Halbert: How does manufacturing activity in New Zealand compare internationally?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Business New Zealand said, in that same report, that New Zealand manufacturing activity mirrored what was seen overseas, with decreasing production and a drop in demand for new orders. New Zealand joined China, the UK, Europe, and Australia in decline, while activity in the US and Japan was just above the break even mark of 50.

Shanan Halbert: What reports has he seen on the demand for workers and its impact on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The SEEK NZ Employment Report declined a seasonally adjusted 1.1 percent in October. On an annual basis, ads rose at 16.3 percent on the same month a year ago. BNZ’s economists said job ads remain at high levels, compared to where they have been in the past, but the series indicated that a peak might have been reached in recent months. New Zealand finds itself well placed in a volatile and uncertain global environment. The Government will continue to take a balanced and sustainable approach, supporting New Zealanders while investing in health, education, and housing, and addressing climate change while also keeping debt under control. This will mean tough choices are required, but New Zealand is well placed to make them.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s statements and actions?

Yes, particularly the introduction today of the Grocery Industry Competition Bill. The bill establishes a Grocery Commissioner at the Commerce Commission, who will have access to a range of enforcement and monitoring tools. It also enables collective bargaining and implements a grocery supply code to protect suppliers from unfair contract terms. The Commerce Commission found New Zealand’s supermarkets earn $1 million a day in excess profits because of a lack of competition. As the global cost of living crisis continues to put pressure on families, this bill is one way the Government can tackle the root causes and enable New Zealanders to get a fairer deal at the checkout.

Christopher Luxon: How many more retailers have to have their windows smashed and their staff and customers terrorised before her Government will actually take action to stop the youth crime wave?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I totally reject the premise that we are not acting on what we are already seeing. If I were to give you just a snapshot, for instance, in Counties Manukau, since the beginning of 2022, we’ve had 85 ram raids, 63 prosecutions, and 30 youth referrals just for that district alone. You are seeing action being taken by the police, supported by the fact that we have a record number of police on the beat as a result of the increase in support from this Government, and we continue to make the interventions required to deal with what has been a spike in ram raid activity.

Christopher Luxon: Does she accept we need tougher consequences for young serious offenders who drive cars into shop windows or rob jewellery stores in broad daylight?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, as a burglary, it already attracts a maximum level of 10 years for a successful conviction. I would also point to the fact that, yes, whilst we have seen a spike, we are also starting to see a decline. In August, we had 75; for the current month, we are currently standing at 13. Again, I point to the fact that you have seen the police rigorously pursuing those who have undertaken this activity, and, as I say, a high proportion of prosecutions across each of those districts.

Christopher Luxon: Has she actually visited and met with any victims of a ram raid in the last six months?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have spoken to a ram raid victim, and I’ve spoken about that in this House before. The most important thing for us to do, though, is, of course, ensure that those who are undertaking this activity are brought to justice and that the interventions are in place to stop the repeat offences. Despite the statements being made by the member, I have just shared the evidence of what is occurring, and it is about making sure that we address what is happening on the ground. At the same time, we also have to try and prevent this kind of activity in the first place. Labour has always been a Government, and party, that does both; National rehash failed policies for political gain.

Christopher Luxon: Why, then, haven’t her policies worked?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I just pointed out, we are seeing a decline. On the other hand, that member is choosing not to accept the fact that his boot camp policy was brought in by John Key in 2008, again by Bill English in 2017, and again, now, by the new member who purported to bring fresh ideas for the National Party.

Christopher Luxon: Why does she not think that the New Zealand Defence Force has some of New Zealand’s best leaders and mentors and might have something to teach serious young offenders?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because the evidence tells us that when you use those policies, recidivism continues to be high; 85 percent reoffending rate. This is not about whether you respect our defence force; it’s whether you look at the facts.

Hon Grant Robertson: Further to that supplementary, does the Prime Minister believe that the New Zealand Defence Force might have some other things that they need to do?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. In fact, we have a large cohort currently in the United Kingdom training Ukrainians in order to support the war effort in Russia’s illegal war.

Christopher Luxon: Why wouldn’t she be interested in a 50 to 65 percent reduction in theft, burglary, and violent crime, given her policies are leading to a ram raid every 15 hours?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because the policy that the member has rehashed from the National Party for the third time has a reoffending rate of 85 percent. We are interested in policies and interventions that work. Our goal in this House should be to reduce victimisation and reduce reoffending. That is what we are focused on, rather than rehashing old failed policy.

Christopher Luxon: Why is the Prime Minister more focused on telling New Zealanders that the voting age should be 16, when she and her Government should be addressing the serious issues of youth crime and the 100,000 students who are chronically absent from school?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Despite the member’s claim, I do not personify the Supreme Court. It was them that made the decision.

David Seymour: Does she stand by the Government’s 2019 decision to repeal the offence of blasphemous libel because it was “Inconsistent with the freedom of expression as protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We stand by the changes we made, but, of course, what we did not repeal was the Human Rights Act and the sections that currently protect, for instance, different ethnicities from those same provisions.

David Seymour: If the Government indeed thought it appropriate to remove the offence of blasphemous libel from the law books, by what logic is it now proposing to introduce a law that would criminalise insulting language directed at religious groups?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is misleading the public, and this is one of the issues about debating this, because what the member is not acknowledging is that we already have these sections in the Human Rights Act—it’s sections 61 and 131. What we are proposing is to add the word “religion”.

David Seymour: So can the Prime Minister please lead the people of New Zealand properly if I am misleading them: can she explain how it is logical to repeal a law against blasphemous libel and then introduce a law which makes it an offence to insult a religion?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I am correcting the member on is the fact that the provision already exists—it already exists. We are simply adding to what is already incitement provisions on ethnic grounds, adding the word “religion”.

Hon Kiritapu Allan: Can the Prime Minister confirm that what the Government’s decision is, with respect to the Human Rights Act amendments made this week, is about incitement and inciting others, not mere insulting or otherwise comments that the other member has said?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I can. And I can also confirm there are existing provisions under the Human Rights Act that apply to colour, race, or ethnicity. What we are proposing is to add the word “religion”. If the member believes that these provisions are wrong, then he should oppose the existing law, not simply the proposal. And I’m glad we have clarified that.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister know how many parents have been fined for their children’s non-attendance of school, under section 244 of the Education and Training Act, and, if she’s not prepared, can she just tell us: is it closer to 10, 1,000, or 10,000 in the last year?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m not sure that it’s fair for the member to claim that it’s a question of preparation. I’m always happy to provide the member with the latest numbers if he puts them on notice. What I can tell the member is that we’ve considerably increased, in the Budget, funding on attendance services because we have set an aspiration of lifting those numbers despite the decline since 2015.

David Seymour: So is the number of parents fined for students’ non-attendance at school closest to 10, 1,000, or 10,000 in the last year?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I already answered the member in my first question, but what I would also caution the member, in looking at the context of the numbers when I am able to provide them to him directly, is that, of course, you would be looking across a year where we’ve had the greatest number of influenza—and a pandemic, which will measurably impact the attendance numbers and the consequences for parents.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Prime Minister been advised that harsher penalties for parents who don’t send their children to school, which were implemented or were legislated for by the previous Government, have seldom been invoked, because they have been found to be ineffective?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. At the same time, the same National Opposition that criticises attendance also did not invest in attendance services. Not only did they change the system markedly, which reduced the effectiveness of attendance services, they increased their budget by about 2 percent. When you compare that to the last two Budgets, where we’ve put in a 26 percent increase in those services.

Question No. 3—Housing

3. to the Minister of Housing: What actions has the Government taken recently to address the housing infrastructure shortage?

Last week, I announced the Government is investing a further $540 million in critical housing infrastructure though our $1 billion contestable Infrastructure Acceleration Fund. This latest round of funding will pay for critical infrastructure like pipes and roads in 13 projects across Hamilton, Auckland, Tauranga, Christchurch, Kawakawa, Kaikohe, Westport, Upper Hutt, Waipukurau, Hokitika, and Pahiatua to enable around 16,600 new homes to be built over the next 10 to 15 years. The housing crisis requires sustained investment in infrastructure to address the massive deficit we’d inherited, and we’re getting on with the job.

Angie Warren-Clark: Why is the Government making record investments in housing infrastructure?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: When we looked into the reasons why New Zealand has simply not built enough houses, we heard that a key reason is severe, long-term under-investment in the literal groundwork to connect new homes and to connect critical services. The Infrastructure Acceleration Fund lays this groundwork with new roading, three waters infrastructure for drinking water, waste water, and stormwater, meaning new housing projects can get under way faster.

Angie Warren-Clark: How is the Government supporting the delivery of more homes in Hamilton?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government is investing more than $150 million to enable around 4,000 new homes in Hamilton City. The funding will be used for further development in the area, including a new water reservoir and pump station, local waters upgrades and improvements, and a multimodal walking and cycling bridge across the Waikato River to connect the eastern suburbs to the city centre. In addition to our infrastructure acceleration funding, we’re building public houses at pace in Hamilton and delivering, on average, around 130 new homes each year, compared to around 16 homes per year between 2008 and 2017.

Angie Warren-Clark: Has the Minister seen any response to the Government’s $150 million investment into homes in Hamilton?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: It was great to make the announcement last week in Hamilton with Mayor Paula Southgate. Mayor Southgate has said of the fund, “The fact the Government has listened to our pleas and agreed to help pay for this fit-for-purpose infrastructure is fantastic news for Hamilton. … This grant is truly game-changing and supports council’s vision to transform the central city into a vibrant place where people want to live, work and visit.”

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with Westpac that “a much higher level of interest rates will be needed to bring inflation under control”, and what impact, if any, have Government spending decisions had on domestic inflation?

As the member will appreciate, as has been the case for finance Ministers since 1989, it is not appropriate for me to provide opinions on what the correct level of interest rates might be for the Reserve Bank to meet its price stability objective. I would note that, in the latest Monetary Policy Statement, the Reserve Bank indicated a forward track that did see increasing interest rates as they seek to return to the 1 to 3 percent inflation band. To answer the second part of the member’s question, the Government has taken a number of actions to take pressure off Consumers Price Index (CPI) inflation. For example, when we announced spending to reduce fuel excise duty and road-user charge, economists estimated that this would take 0.5 percentage points off the domestic headline CPI. I further note the Treasury’s commentary in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update: “the fiscal impulse is forecast to turn negative … in 2022/23 and remain so throughout the remainder of the forecast period. This indicates that, as temporary COVID-19-related fiscal support is withdrawn year-on-year and the fiscal balance heads into surplus, the Government is forecast to contribute less to aggregate demand each year than in the preceding year.”

Nicola Willis: Is it the case that a borrower who fixed their mortgage at 2.7 percent in 2020 will now face re-fixing their rate at over 6 percent, meaning that someone with a $500,000 mortgage will need to find a whopping $310 more per week to service their mortgage under Labour?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we’ve discussed before when the member has raised these kinds of examples, it would very much depend upon the specific circumstances of that household. What we do know is that many New Zealanders will be facing increased mortgage payments over the coming year. That’s why it is a good thing that average hourly earnings are tracking just above inflation at the moment. That’s why it’s a good thing that we’ve increased the minimum wage. That’s why it’s a good thing that we’ve provided additional support for low and middle income households—things that the National Party has opposed.

Nicola Willis: Does he recall receiving advice from Treasury that extra fiscal stimulus would cause the official cash rate to rise by an additional 30 basis points for every percentage of GDP, and, if so, what responsibility does he take for the contributions that stimulatory fiscal policy—big spending—has made to New Zealanders’ interest rates?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The responsibility I take is having been the Minister of Finance while we have helped New Zealanders get through COVID. That indeed did require a significant fiscal response—a fiscal response that, at various times, the National Party either supported or didn’t support. But I would note that, even as late as 2021, when there were examples of concern being raised about where interest rates might go, the National Party was continuing to propose more spending in certain areas. So the member can’t have it both ways.

Nicola Willis: Does he recall his officials specifically advising that the cost of living payment would add to inflationary pressures, and, if so, what advice has he had about how much higher inflation, and therefore interest rates, is as a result of his sending money to backpackers in Europe?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I do recall is the Treasury saying that if a payment was made that was temporary and targeted, that would have less of an impact on inflation than, for example, across-the-board tax cuts that go disproportionately to the wealthiest New Zealanders. We have stepped up continually through the period of COVID to support New Zealand households. The member might want to rewrite history now and claim that we didn’t need to do that, the wage subsidy wasn’t needed, we didn’t need to step in to support people on $70,000 a year—she used to say those things in the House. The Government has stepped up to support New Zealanders, and I am proud of our record in doing so.

Nicola Willis: Has he failed to deliver on his promise to tilt the balance towards first-home buyers, when analysis by interest.co.nz published today shows that housing affordability for first-home buyers is the worst it has been since reports began in 2004?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I do know we have done is tilt the balance so that there is now a higher percentage of first-home buyers in the market than we have seen from when that statement was made.

Nicola Willis: What does he say to Maddie, a young first-home buyer in Wellington, who is bracing for an interest rate increase of over $25,000 a year when she re-fixes next year, and does he take responsibility for his actions which have further pushed up interest rates?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we have said many times in this House, there are a number of households in New Zealand who are going to find 2023 tough. That’s the reason why, as a Government, we have stepped up to support low and middle income households to get through this period of time. The member continues to misrepresent the position of what it is that causes inflation. If the member is really, really serious about wanting to debate these issues, it shouldn’t be on the basis of taking out small amounts of spending that she may or may not agree with and claiming that, somehow or other, they are exacerbating inflation. If Government spending was to truly exacerbate inflation, it would need to be something like across-the-board tax cuts that were going to the wealthiest New Zealanders, or the member might like us to stop our State house building programme and explain to Mr Bishop how that works, or stop our spending in the health sector and explain to Dr Reti how that works. It’s not quite as simple as the member thinks it is.

Question No. 5—Foreign Affairs

5. to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What recent announcements has the Government made about support for Ukraine in response to Russia’s illegal invasion?

The Government recently announced the extension of the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) support for Ukraine, including intelligence and logistic support and training for Ukrainian military personnel in the United Kingdom. This extension will see a team of 66 NZDF personnel deployed to the UK through to July next year to provide infantry training to Ukrainian forces. It will also build on the great work accomplished by the UK-led programme, which has seen nearly 10,000 Ukrainian personnel benefit from training to date. In his recent visit to the UK and Kyiv, the Minister of Defence heard firsthand, from Ukrainian troops and Government, the difference this training has made to the preparation of Ukraine’s armed forces in addition to the package of military, diplomatic, legal, and humanitarian assistance provided by Aotearoa New Zealand.

Ibrahim Omer: What is New Zealand doing to support Ukraine through the upcoming northern winter?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: New Zealand has pledged a further $1.85 million to the NATO Trust Fund for Ukraine. This will provide non-lethal military support like winter clothing, food rations, mobile generators, first-aid kits, and other vital supplies over the coming northern winter. This adds to the $8.7 million New Zealand has provided to date to purchase basic equipment, medical supplies, fuel, and food rations for Ukraine through the NATO Trust Fund. In response to appeals, we’ve also provided $7.9 million in humanitarian aid to support Ukrainian civilians this year. We will continue to monitor the humanitarian needs over winter and any appeals for aid to support Ukraine.

Ibrahim Omer: What is New Zealand doing to put further pressure on Russia to end its illegal war?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yesterday, I announced further sanctions on members of the inner circles of Governments in Russia and Belarus, as part of the ongoing international response to the war in Ukraine. These recent sanctions targeted 22 members of the elite who lend support to the illegal invasion of Ukraine; Russia relies on the ongoing support of those in positions of power and influence as it continues its illegal and unjustified invasion of Ukraine. Also sanctioned yesterday were four entities of economic or strategic relevance to Russia in the oil and gas, steel, and transport sectors, as well as radar and electronic equipment systems.

Ibrahim Omer: What impacts are sanctions having on Russia?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: This is the 16th tranche of sanctions against Russia, adding to existing sanctions on 1,200 individuals and entities covering political leaders, oligarchs, banks, gold importers, defence industry, cyber-hackers, and Belarus. These sanctions are having an impact since the introduction of our trade measures in April—for example, imports from Russia have dropped by 75 percent. New Zealand is playing its role in the global effort to debilitate Russia’s ability to wage its unjust war against Ukraine. Russia’s economy is expected to contract by at least 3 percent this year, and export controls have severed Russia’s access to key technologies like semiconductors that will erode its military capability.

Question No. 6—Housing

6. to the Minister of Housing: Is she confident that the homes of the 1.4 million New Zealanders who rent are healthy and well managed?

Over our five years in Government, we have made good progress in improving standards for renters, but we know there is still work to do. We introduced the healthy homes standard in 2017. As of October 2021, surveys indicate that around 85 percent of private landlords report that they have met the standard or have begun the work required to meet the healthy homes standard. Likewise, 84 percent of Kāinga Ora tenancies either meet the standards or have work in progress to meet them, and Kāinga Ora are now upgrading 600 homes a week.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why, then, does the Government not have a verifiable central repository of data on compliance on private rentals with the healthy homes standards?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: There is a number of streams of work under way around compliance with the healthy homes standards. There is at the moment, due to finish in November of this year, another survey that is in the field that will be reported to Government around both tenant and landlord uptake. We also, in Budget 2021, allocated nearly $16 million over four years for implementation that included compliance and monitoring. There was an increase of investigations and assessments from 2,000 to 3,000 per annum, a greater level of compliance with the standards through employing an additional 14 compliance and investigation personnel, increasing the capacity for proactive monitoring and enforcement activity. There was data analysis and intelligence work to ensure that interventions are targeted at the highest risk areas so we can look at minimising harm in those areas. We’re also supporting the most vulnerable tenants to take action against non-compliance and providing information and education to the residential tenancy sector to raise awareness of compliance.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has she seen reports from inspection companies that professionally managed rental properties had higher levels of compliance with healthy homes standards while independent landlords had lower levels of compliance, and, if so, doesn’t that suggest that private landlords should also be registered and regulated, like she announced for property managers today?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The changes that we made around the moves that our Government is making to finally regulate property managers, in the legislation that will be debated in this House, do not apply to individual landlords, for the very simple reason that the advice that I have is that individual landlords are regulated through the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA). But what I have made very clear to the sector is that this is a particular area of interest that I would like the select committee to look at very closely to see if there is a case for broadening it. But the advice I have at the moment is that it is not required because the RTA does that.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Did the Government, then, consider including private landlords who manage 60 percent of private rental properties in this country in its proposed property manager register, which closed to public consultation nine months ago, and, if so, why did it decide against it?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think I covered off the answer to that question in the previous answer that I gave, that this is something that was canvassed—of course it was—that we are a Government that has a programme of work for the first time to improve the lot of renters in this country, that the advice that we had is that this was not required because individual landlords are regulated under the Residential Tenancies Act. And, as I also said in the answer to the last question, this is a question that I would like the select committee to spend some time considering.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How many Kāinga Ora tenants is the Government comfortable with getting sick due to living in cold, damp, unhealthy homes as a result of the extension of the healthy homes standards compliance?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We are a Government that is only tolerant of zero percent of Kāinga Ora tenants living in cold, damp homes. That is why we are a Government that not only has the largest State house build in a generation but we are a Government that has committed to not only meeting the healthy homes standards but have invested a significant amount of money in the refurbishment of our current stock. Unlike the previous Government, I’d like to add, who, instead of doing that, took out half a billion dollars in dividends from the then Housing New Zealand.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Government reverse the burden of proof of compliance and implement a warrant of fitness which would cover all rental properties, and resolve issues with healthy homes standards data, compliance, and enforcement; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Through the course of developing this legislation a warrant of fitness was considered. The cost-benefit analysis showed that minimum standards were the more effective tool. So the reason we won’t be is because the advice we have is that they are the more effective tool. I would like to point out to that member that the tenancy compliance and investigation team (TCIT) at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment undertakes both proactive assessments and reactive investigations in regard to compliance. Since 1 July 2021, the TCIT have investigated 416 cases where breaches of the healthy homes standard were alleged; 88 percent of those investigations were proactive assessments while 12 percent were in response to a tenant complaint and breaches of the standard were confirmed in 34 percent of those cases. We are proactively making sure that landlords comply with the standard.

Question No. 7—Health

7. to the Minister of Health: What is the latest reported average wait-time in emergency departments across New Zealand, and what was the longest wait-time at Christchurch Hospital ED this weekend?

The average wait time is just over five hours. Data for September 2022 shows that the national average shortest day in emergency departments (EDs) had 71.2 percent of patients treated, transferred, or discharged within six hours. In terms of Christchurch Hospital’s ED performance over the past weekend, I’m advised that hospital staff saw a little over 1,000 patients across the 72-hour period from Friday night through to Sunday. The average time from presentation to discharge was just over 4½ hours. The longest time from presentation to discharge was just over 17½ hours.

Dr Shane Reti: Isn’t it true that now one month after the ED tragedy at Christchurch, when there were 11 nursing roster gaps, he has done absolutely nothing to relieve the crisis except hold a hui in Parliament?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No.

Dr Shane Reti: If the sector is coping, as he wrote in written questions recently, why are Wellington ED nurses handing out the Minister’s contact details to patients to complain, as reported today?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not responsible for the discharge of duties by clinical staff in our hospitals.

Dr Shane Reti: Is his appalling management of the record surgical wait-list at Christchurch Hospital placing even further pressure on ED, given he replied to me that nearly a third of patients on current wait-lists have also been to ED?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No.

Question No. 8—Education (School Operations)

8. to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations): What feedback has she seen from principals and schools on the Government Attendance and Engagement Strategy?

The Government has been working with schools and communities to turn around the decade-long decline in regular attendance. The collaborative approach to getting kids engaged and regularly attending at school has been well received by the sector. For example, Kate Gainsford, the chair of the Secondary Principals’ Council highlighted this when she said, “The collective effort required to support parents, caregivers, and whānau in communities is acknowledged in the strategy. … strengthening local support for whānau is absolutely crucial to ensuring tamariki and rangatahi go to school.”

Camilla Belich: Why is listening to schools and principals important?

Hon JAN TINETTI: In order to make meaningful change, we need to draw on evidence about what works. The people best placed to provide that advice are the professionals and the experts in the sector. When we launched our comprehensive Attendance and Engagement Strategy, we worked with the sector to set ambitious targets. Together, we developed actions to respond to the impacts of COVID-19 and re-engage kids in education. We backed that with an $88 million attendance package to empower local solutions to meet our attendance target.

Camilla Belich: What examples has she seen of the Regional Response Fund making a difference for schools?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I’ve seen many examples on how the Regional Response Fund is enabling innovative ways to remove barriers to regular attendance. For example, Tawhero School has reported utilising the Regional Response Fund to work with tamariki with severe anxiety and who are disrupted from learning stemming from COVID-19—a combination of physical activities alongside learning new strategies to work through mental health challenges that are getting in the way of their learning. This builds on evidence from the Urgent Response Fund after the first lockdown, where addressing the wellbeing and mental health needs was critical to getting our kids back to the classroom.

Camilla Belich: Can the Minister provide other examples of how principals are using the Regional Response Fund to improve attendance at their school?

Hon JAN TINETTI: There are many, and, yes, I can, but there is one in particular that stands out for me. In the Nelson, Marlborough, and West Coast area, Kāhui Ako have worked together to implement a bespoke plan to improve attendance outcomes for vulnerable learners, including analysing school data, engaging with social support workers and whānau connectors, and breaking down barriers to attendance in enacting a back to school local campaign. I have full confidence in our principals and teachers to understand the needs of our young people and get them back and engaged in the classroom.

Erica Stanford: Can she explain why, despite the Urgent Response Fund at $50 million and the Regional Response Fund at another $40 million, the numbers of students who are currently officially classified as chronically absent is still over 100,000 children, a number that has nearly tripled in the last five years?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Yes, I can. The data that shows that is the most official data and comes from term 2. In term 2, we know that that was attributable to the fact that New Zealand was at the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. It does not take much to put young people into that chronically absent area. It is something that we have explained in the House before; it would be good if people could actually understand the data.

Question No. 9—Housing

9. to the Minister of Housing: Did she take a paper to the Cabinet Social Wellbeing Committee last week; if so, did that paper contain a recommendation to extend time frames for private landlords to reach the heathy homes standards?

Yes, along with recommendations to extend the compliance time frames for Kāinga Ora and community housing providers. This Cabinet paper was based on policy decisions that I made in August of this year.

Brooke van Velden: Why did it include private landlords?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Because we’d heard from private landlords that they needed additional time in order to reach the standards.

Brooke van Velden: Is it a contradiction from this Government to extend the healthy homes standard deadlines for private landlords when, in this House, on 18 November 2021, in answer to my question about an extension to the healthy homes standards, the now former Associate Minister of Housing said, “It’s my understanding that the vast majority of landlords have already complied,”; and about advice received, “The advice was that it would not be possible to extend compliance deadlines in a way that assists the vast majority of landlords, and including those whose compliance deadlines have already passed.”?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Of course it’s not a contradiction—we are a pragmatic Government that listens to sector feedback. What we do know is that the most up-to-date data that we have from survey work is around 85 percent of private landlords have complied or have work under way to comply with the standard. This is roughly around the same as Kāinga Ora, of what they have completed or have under way. This suggests to me that this is around the market capacity at the moment, given the constraints that we’ve seen in completing this work. It would be absurd for our Government not to listen to that.

Brooke van Velden: When did this advice change?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: If the member cared to listen to the previous answer that I gave to the primary question, the decision was made based on policy decisions that I made in August. I received a briefing on 9 August, of which I agreed to the recommendations to include Kāinga Ora, community housing providers, and private landlords, as well as extending out the time to comply between tenancies from 90 to 120 days. I know that the Opposition spokesperson on housing has put out a press release today saying that this was in response to ACT’s pressure, but she is simply wrong and the documentation shows she is wrong.

SPEAKER: Did you refer to the National Party?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No, I was referring to the Opposition spokesperson.

SPEAKER: The ACT spokesperson?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Oh, sorry. The ACT spokesperson.

SPEAKER: OK, very good. But the start of the answer was unnecessary. I’ll give the member an extra question.

Brooke van Velden: Will she release all advice on the healthy homes extensions that she has received, including relevant Cabinet papers and advice that she’s received from officials?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The relevant Cabinet paper was put up earlier today on the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development website, so it has already been received. And point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a piece of advice from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, dated 8 August 2022 and entitled Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019—

SPEAKER: Is it publicly available?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No, it’s not. Review of—

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There appears to be none; it may be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

SPEAKER: Sorry, I just want to check. Did you use the extra question I gave you or are you—

Brooke van Velden: I did use an extra question.

Question No. 10—Justice

10. to the Minister of Justice: Are the Government’s justice priorities to deal effectively with the increase in violent crimes and delays to justice?

I can confirm that those are two of our priorities, alongside a range of others.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why has the Government chosen to prioritise hate speech legislation, when it still hasn’t fixed the 527 percent increase in the number of victims of serious crimes waiting longer than two years for justice, and shouldn’t it be focused on that?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I can confirm that what we have undertaken to do as a Government is respond to and implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terrorist attack on Christchurch, of which amending and extending the incitement provisions in the Human Rights Act to religious groups was a direct recommendation.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why is the Government prioritising legislation to lower the voting age, when, for example, it’s still far from successfully addressing the 500 percent increase in ram raids, and shouldn’t that be her focus in justice?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I’ll answer that question in two parts. To the latter part of the question: the member will be minded that since we announced the better wraparound support in September to young offenders, around half of the most serious and repeat offenders that were identified are now back in education or training, and almost a third have not reoffended. Since May, in Auckland, 1,036 charges have been laid against 142 young people; in Waikato, 1,229 charges have been filed against 205 young people. On this side of the House, we have decided to take an evidence-based approach to focusing on youth crime. On the other side of the House, they have consistently decided to take a non-evidential basis, announcing policies that show 85 percent failure, where their own Ministers and former Ministers have resoundingly reprimanded the Opposition for announcing rehashed, re-failed policies.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she agree with the Prime Minister only a few weeks ago, who said we need extra tools to help deal with the youth crime wave that we’re confronting, and why is she not open to considering those extra tools as suggested by the National Party?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: As just previously stated, our side of the House has been focused on increasing more police on the streets. Their side of the House, when they were in power, they reduced the number of police on the streets, they reduced the number of tools that were available to them, and they closed police stations. On our side of the House, we have decided to act on evidence. On their side of the House, they rehash failed policies, and they’re expensive policies at that.

Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

11. to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What announcements has he made about improving supermarket competition?

Yesterday, I announced the bill to trigger an unprecedented shake-up of the grocery sector and help New Zealanders get a fairer deal at the supermarket. That bill has been introduced to Parliament ahead of its first reading. The duopoly has now been given plenty of warning; if they fail to adequately open up their wholesale arms voluntarily, Government will make it happen for them. As the global cost of living crisis continues to put pressure of families, this bill is one way Government can tackle the root causes.

Glen Bennett: How will this bill improve competition in the grocery sector?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Alongside their retail stores, supermarkets have behind-the-scenes wholesale operations. Earlier this year, I called on the duopoly to lock in good-faith wholesale arrangements on their own terms, or risk facing regulatory intervention. The bill establishes a Grocery Commissioner who will act as a referee for the sector. If the duopoly fails to reach commercial wholesale deals, or those deals aren’t competitive enough, the commissioner will have the ability to intervene and require a certain price and range. You cannot run a supermarket on empty shelves. That is why it is vital that the duopoly’s competitors have access to fair wholesale terms.

Glen Bennett: What else will this bill achieve?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The bill will also enable collective bargaining and it will implement a grocery supply code to protect suppliers from unfair contract terms. This is especially important for smaller local businesses vying for shelf space in our major supermarkets. Also included is a dispute resolution scheme for suppliers and wholesale customers. This bill will not only ensure there is increased competition in the sector but it will fundamentally change the power dynamic between the duopoly and other players in the market.

Glen Bennett: Has he seen any industry response to the announcement?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Yes, I have. The Food and Grocery Council said the bill “will address a wide range of desperately needed changes in the grocery sector”. Chief executive Raewyn Bleakley called the work to address wholesale offerings “very significant” and also congratulated Government for moving so fast to get this bill introduced. As the global cost of living crisis continues to put pressure on Kiwi families, our duopoly is making excess profits of $1 million a day. This Government is committed to getting consumers better bang for their buck at the checkout.

Question No. 12—Education

12. to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his Associate Minister’s statement on his behalf regarding Te Pūkenga that “no discussions have been had around co-leadership”?

Yes, in the context it was made, particularly as it followed questions about whether Te Pūkenga should have a Māori at chief executive level. I am aware that Te Pūkenga’s current recruitment includes eight regional co-leadership positions. Each of the four regions will have one co-leader with primary responsibility for maintaining and operating effective partnerships with hapū and iwi in that region.

Penny Simmonds: Is the cost of co-leadership roles included in the programme business case the Minister received from Te Pūkenga in October, and how much additional funding in total was sought in the business case above what had been budgeted for?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The answer to the first part of the question is yes. In answer to the second part of the question, we have not yet released that information.

Penny Simmonds: What impact does the Minister consider the eight co-leadership roles, costing between $200,000 and $350,000 each, might have on the morale of staff waiting to hear if they are going to be made redundant?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Consolidating 16 individual entities into one national entity with a regional leadership structure is likely, ultimately, to result in cost savings at the leadership level.

Penny Simmonds: Does the Minister consider it good practice to advertise co-leadership positions for four regions that haven’t yet been agreed on, and will the regions mirror the four regions of three waters and/or iwi boundaries?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the last part of the question, those will be decisions for Te Pūkenga. In answer to the first part of the question, I do think that the co-leadership model, in this particular instance, has a lot to offer. There is no question that our vocational education system needs to do a better job of serving Māori learners. The member will be well aware of that given her former institution, the Southern Institute of Technology, has the worst first-year retention rate for Māori students in the country.