Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with CoreLogic chief economist Kelvin Davidson on rising mortgage interest rates that it’s “a big change, so that’s going to mean quite a big change for household finances”; if so, what advice, if any, has he had on the impact rising mortgage interest rates will have on disposable household incomes?

I do acknowledge the impact that rising mortgage interest rates will have on households, which is why this Government is focused on supporting New Zealanders, both directly but also through maintaining economic growth, low unemployment, and higher wage growth. It is worth pointing out the context that Mr Davidson gave for his comments, and I’ll quote briefly from him: “Comparing the current downturn to the GFC, one big wildcard is low unemployment, and nobody’s expecting it to suddenly spike higher. Strong employment should help to keep a floor under home values, and be the difference between a correction and a more serious slump.” I would note for the member that the last time mortgage interest rates were at the current levels was in 2015, when unemployment was 5.5 to 5.7 percent. To answer the second part of the question, I certainly have received a range of advice. One report from Statistics New Zealand today said that household savings had increased in the latest quarter as incomes rose and expenses fell, indicating the importance of maintaining a strong economy, low unemployment, and rising wages during a global inflation spike.

Nicola Willis: So is it the Minister of Finance’s position that families who are now going to be paying hundreds of dollars more each week in mortgage repayments, while also having to find hundreds of dollars more each month for their grocery bills, should just be grateful they have a job?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, absolutely not. As I’ve stated many times in this House, I understand that this is a tough period for many New Zealand households. That’s the reason why the Government has continued to step up with initiatives to support low and middle income people. All of those initiatives, without fail, have been opposed by the National Party.

Nicola Willis: Has he sought any advice on how many people who purchased their homes in the past two years will be facing the prospect of default on their mortgage if the current projected interest rate increases occur?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Again, as I said in my primary answer, there is a wide range of advice. I would note the advice from the banking sector itself for the first half of this year that noted that the number of customers who were behind on their loan repayments was only just over 1 percent of borrowers. We do know that, as part of the stress-testing exercise when people take on mortgages, those are stress-tested at much higher rates than the rate that the person actually borrows at. I have no doubt that, for a number of households, this is going to be a very tough period. The Government has continued to support New Zealanders through this period, and a low unemployment environment—i.e., people being in work—supports them to get through the situation.

Nicola Willis: Can he confirm that a family borrowing a $500,000 mortgage at the average two-year rate of 5.65 percent will now be paying—sorry, it was 2.69 percent—$14,300 more a year on the rate of 5.65 percent, which is $275 more per week?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It will depend entirely on the specific circumstances. That calculation could well be correct for a household in a particular set of circumstances. I repeat: no one is denying that this is a tough period for many households in New Zealand. That’s why they need a Government that is focused on making sure that we keep people in work, that we support economic growth that is sustainable in New Zealand, and that we look after the most vulnerable in our society.

Nicola Willis: Can he confirm that, for every additional 0.5 percent in rising interest rates, that family with a $500,000 mortgage will be $2,500 a year worse off—nearly $50 a week in higher mortgage interest costs?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, again, without all of the information about the person, it’s hard to say exactly what will happen. I presume those people will fix their mortgage at some point in the process, and so, therefore, won’t be subjected to the increases in rates that follow on from that. Again, none of this changes the point: there are many households in New Zealand who are finding things tough at the moment. That’s why they need a Government that has fully costed policies and is focused on supporting New Zealanders, and not on making tax cuts available for the wealthiest New Zealanders, which is what the National Party would do.

Nicola Willis: Does he accept any responsibility for rising interest rates and record high inflation, or is it his position that his job as finance Minister is to try and convince New Zealanders that everything’s just fine when they aren’t only having to face rising living costs but they’re now having to face rising mortgage costs at the bank?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is my belief that it is my job as the Minister of Finance to continue to help shepherd New Zealand through the impacts of a major crisis in the global economy. For the last 2½ years, this Government has stood alongside New Zealanders, supporting them through the wage subsidy scheme, supporting small businesses with the small-business cash flow scheme and with the resurgence support payment, lifting benefits, increasing the family tax credit, lifting the minimum wage, and making sure that New Zealand has got through a massive crisis with unemployment at 3.3 percent. There are no costless decisions when it comes to a pandemic, but I stand proudly on this Government’s record.

Question No. 2—Police

2. to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has he seen of New Zealand Police responding to youth offending?

Police have made hundreds of arrests and laid thousands of charges for offending at retail businesses in Auckland and the Waikato in recent months. Provisional figures show how hard police staff have been working to identify offenders and to hold them to account. Yesterday I met with the Dairy and Business Owners Group and I recognise how tough it has been for them to be the targets of this criminal offending. Police focus continues to be on working to try and prevent this type of offending and to hold to account those responsible, whilst also ensuring that the necessary supports are in place for victims to prevent this happening again.

Helen White: What steps have police taken to respond to youth crime in Tāmaki Makaurau?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Across Tāmaki-makau-rau, police have arrested 129 youth offenders and laid 1,036 charges since May. Those charges, across both regions, relate to burglary, robbery, and unlawful taking offences. In many instances, individuals have been charged with more than one offence on more than one occasion. I was advised this morning that just last night, police across Tāmaki-makau-rau arrested 15 young people aged between 11 and 16 following fleeing-driver incidents involving stolen vehicles. Further investigations are ongoing, and more arrests and charges will be made.

Ginny Andersen: What steps have police taken to respond to youth crime in the Waikato region?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In the Waikato, 205 offenders have been arrested a total of 307 times for ram raid and smash and grab - style offending. Some of those arrested have been repeat offenders. Overall, those charged are now facing or have faced a total of 1,229 charges that have been filed in the Youth Court. This data relates to the period from 1 February to the end of September.

Ginny Andersen: What insights has he seen from police on the nature of this offending and on how the Government is working together to respond?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It is clear from my conversations with police that police alone will not be able to solve the level of offending that we are currently seeing amongst young people. The complex social issues that sit underneath this need to be addressed in a whole-of-Government manner. As the Minister of Police and as the Minister for the Public Service, I have been convening regular conversations across Government to make sure that we are doing everything we can to get these young people off the streets and back on to the straight and narrow.

Question No. 3—Immigration

3. to the Minister of Immigration: Has he seen the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities report’s concerns and recommendations regarding the acceptable standards of health requirements; if so, has he requested any advice on this report?

Yes, I’m aware that the UN committee has made observations about New Zealand’s progress in realising disability rights, including three observations in the immigration area. Officials will soon be providing me with full advice on these issues. I understand that my colleague the Minister for Disability Issues has agreed a cross-agency process to respond to all of the recommendations, and my immigration officials will be providing a formal response to this. All recommendations will be considered early next year. More broadly, I note that an Immigration New Zealand working group has been considering the acceptable standard of health requirements, and that a number of changes have been made recently, including increasing the significant-cost health threshold from $41,000 to $81,000 over five years, removing HIV from the list of medical conditions considered to impose significant costs and/or demands on New Zealand’s health or education services, and updating the list of countries considered to have a low incidence of TB to include an additional 85 countries that no longer pose a significant risk. Proving an individual has an acceptable standard of health is necessary for several reasons but is primarily required to ensure they will not impose significant costs or demand on health, disability, or education services during their time in New Zealand. It’s a challenging balance.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What is his response to Jonny Wilkinson, CEO of Tiaho Trust - Disability A Matter of Perception, who wrote on the Northern Advocate on 8 October: “It’s not really the dollar figure that perturbs the disability community, it’s the principle of the matter. It says to New Zealand and to the rest of the world that disabled people are not wanted and are a burden”?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: What I would say to the gentleman in question is that disabled people right across New Zealand society are valued and make a significant contribution. In respect of the immigration system, New Zealand—like every other country—will make reasonable and balanced decisions about how it manages its borders. We do have to be fair for everyone: those people who wish to apply to come to New Zealand and New Zealand taxpayers more broadly.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does the Minister support the committee’s recommendation that New Zealand reviews and amends its immigration and asylum legislation and rules “that persons with disabilities do not face discrimination in any of the formalities and procedures relating to immigration and asylum, in particular as a result of the application of the acceptable standards of health requirements”; if not, why not?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As I said in my primary answer, we will be giving full consideration to the observations and recommendations of the UN committee and responding in due course.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is the Minister confident that disabled convention refugees and asylum seekers aren’t being subjected to the acceptable standards of health policy?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: In respect of asylum seekers and refugee claimants, as far as I’m aware, we are compliant with all of our obligations in respect of those people.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How many, if any, disabled people were consulted as part of the recent changes to the threshold for determining if a condition will create a significant cost to the health system?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I think the member in the House would appreciate I don’t have that particular number to hand, but I’m very happy to provide it to the member. I do know that there was engagement with relevant sector groups about that policy before it was decided.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does the Minister believe that disabled people should be part of the review of the acceptable standards of health requirements; and if so, what steps is he taking to ensure that disabled people are participating in the process?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: We do have further work that is going into consideration of policies around the acceptable standard of health. It is my expectation that we would consult with the disabled community as a part of that work, and that is something that I will ensure that officials do.

Question No. 4—Health

4. to the Minister of Health: How many people identified by his “high-powered” waiting list task force as having waited more than 12 months on the surgical waiting list have had surgery, and how many have been removed from that list due to being medically unfit for treatment?

Wait-list numbers change every day—for example, when patients are scheduled, treated, or there is a change in clinical circumstance. As at 1 July this year, the clinical task force appointed by Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand had identified 5,405 patients who had been waiting more than 12 months. Between 1 July this year and 31 August this year, 734 people had been treated or discharged and removed from the wait-list. As at 31 August, the wait-list for those waiting over 365 days stood at 5,104, which reflects the net movement of people on the wait-list; 672 of those people had been booked for surgery, 1,772 people had been scheduled but not yet notified of surgery, 2,660 had not yet been scheduled for surgery, and approximately 70 had returned to the care of their GP. It’s important to understand that a patient’s procedure might be deferred if they have a minor illness such as a cold. However, it’s unlikely that this would be coded as medically unfit for treatment, because to do so requires that the time frame for when treatment can be rescheduled is unknown. Therefore, what I can say is Te Whatu Ora advised that approximately 81, or 1.5 percent, of patients have been coded with what they describe as Exit Category 15: Medically unfit for treatment. Responding to the global pandemic has resulted in delays to planned care. Our doctors and nurses are doing a magnificent job addressing the backlog, and I thank them for their hard work.

Dr Shane Reti: What does he say to those 81 people who were fit for surgery when the surgeon put them on the wait-list 12 months ago but because they have waited 12 months, they are now too unwell and have been removed from his priority list?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, I don’t think it’s possible to generalise about the people in that particular category, but I do note, when we sort of do a comparative example, for those described as medically unfit for treatment, in the year to 30 June 2017 2.3 percent of people were described as medically unfit for treatment and therefore did not get their treatment. In the period to 30 June 2021, which is the last full year for which we have current data, it was 1.8 percent. So even with dealing with a pandemic, our health system is doing better than the final years of the previous Government.

Dr Shane Reti: Why, in written questions, is exit data missing for people waiting more than 12 months for surgery on the priority list, including two whole months missing from MidCentral, and which other areas have similar missing data from this list?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: One of the appalling parts of the health system that we inherited from the previous Government is the hopeless data system that we had—so a totally disaggregated system. That’s why last year we started the long, hard journey of investing more than $600 million to upgrade our data system so that every hospital is able to gather data and report it consistently, something the previous Government totally overlooked.

Dr Shane Reti: Is missing data his new excuse now for some of the worst waiting lists ever given that his recent attempt to blame the worst flu season ever is not supported by Institute of Environmental Science and Research health stats data from 300 general practices?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No, the missing data is my explanation for the appalling stewardship of our health system by the previous National Government, who under-resourced it and underfunded it and left health professionals doing the best they could with appalling systems.

Dr Shane Reti: How many patients waiting more than 12 months on his priority surgical list died while waiting, and of the three codes he gives for removal from that list, are deaths while waiting recorded as the code “change in patient circumstances” or “medically unfit for treatment”?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I don’t have that data, but what I do know, and as I indicated in the answer to that member’s first supplementary question, is that the ability for the health system today to deal with those who’ve been waiting a long time for their surgery and get their treatment, even though it is overdue, is better than in the final years of the previous National Government.

Question No. 5—ACC

5. to the Minister for ACC: What announcements has she made about improving ACC support for workers?

Today marks the 50th anniversary of the Accident Compensation Act which passed in this very House in 1972. ACC is a word-leading scheme and has served New Zealand well for decades. But, as with any scheme that is 50 years old, we need to ensure it continues to be updated. We took the first step in this mahi by the passing of the maternal birth injuries bill, and, today, I announced a new review framework for Schedule 2 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. This framework will guide a fresh look at what occupational diseases should be covered in the year 2023 and beyond. The review of Schedule 2 will be consulted publicly, ensuring that workers, businesses, and other interested parties can provide feedback.

Angela Roberts: Why is a new review framework needed?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Schedule 2 is set up to reflect a very different labour market to the one we have now and has not been updated since 2010. It has now become clear that women, Māori, Pacific, and disabled people are not as well served by ACC. The new review framework will provide a regular, evidence-based approach to review Schedule 2 to ensure it reflects diseases that all working New Zealanders experience. It will take into account gender and improve our understanding of how occupational diseases impact different population groups in Aotearoa. Previous National Governments have made cuts to the support ACC provides to New Zealanders or tried to privatise it. This Government is committed to strengthening ACC supports and ensuring they serve New Zealanders as we are in 2022 and beyond. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I’m going to award the Opposition, the National Party, a question. That was unnecessary on a Government question to itself.

Angela Roberts: What other announcements has she made regarding ACC?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Recently, I announced the opening of consultation on changes to ACC’s Accredited Employers Programme. At its best, the programme enables employers to provide a better experience for injured workers and supports them to recover fully from their injuries. However, over time, it’s become clear that stronger measures are needed. The consultation aims to help us strengthen the programme by ensuring employers are held to account and injured workers are better supported. We know that this programme does deliver positive outcomes and that it currently delivers better return-to-work outcomes for employees. It’s important that we maintain this, but we are committed to taking steps to better support injured workers on their journeys to returning to work.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will the Minister commit to our professional firefighters that the review of occupational diseases will result in a presumptive list of cancers for cover, that evidence shows is linked to their occupation?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We’re not looking at presumptive cover.

Angela Roberts: What are the proposed changes to the Accredited Employers Programme?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The proposals aim to tighten the standards for and the monitoring of accredited employers, pick up poor performers faster, and provide a greater range of sanctions if poor performance occurs. This includes exiting poor performers from the programme if they are unable or unwilling to improve. The proposals have been co-designed with employers, workers, and health and safety experts to ensure that we strike the right balance between the welfare of workers and compliance costs for employers. Both of these moves are timely in updating ACC for the modern era. I’d like to recognise all of those who were a part of passing the Act 50 years ago. Their foresight has provided us with a fantastic resource for New Zealand. It is our job as stewards of the legislation to ensure it continues to evolve to reflect the modern world we live in.

Question No. 6—Police

6. to the Minister of Police: How many ram raids have been reported since May 2022, and how many offenders have been arrested in relation to these reported ram raids?

I’m advised that since May 2022, there have been 215 ram raids recorded nationally. Police have made 347 arrests on these kinds of incidents in the Tāmaki Makaurau and Waikato districts in the last eight months. The number of arrests specifically relating to ram raids across the rest of New Zealand isn’t readily available, but I can confirm that a total of 315 prosecutions and 115 youth referrals have been made relating to ram raids since the beginning of the year.

Chris Baillie: Is the Minister considering changing the police pursuit policy to account for the surge in ram raids, considering that only 17 percent of fleeing drivers were subsequently apprehended in 2021 compared to 41 percent in 2017?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The fleeing drivers policy is a matter for the police. It’s an operational matter. But the Commissioner of Police and I have had conversations about it, and I do expect that there are going to be changes to that policy.

Chris Baillie: What percentage of ram raid offenders have been identified as youth offenders, and will the Minister consider adopting ACT’s policy to introduce ankle bracelets for serious repeat youth offenders?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t have a specific percentage, but the vast majority of ram raids are being undertaken by young people. That’s not to say that there aren’t some older people involved, but the advice that I’ve had from police is that this is predominantly a young people issue, including some very young offenders—some below the age of 10, for example. In terms of the ankle bracelet policy, the issue of removing some of the repeat offenders from circulation and keeping them out of circulation is something that the Government is very focused on. I’m not convinced that extra use of ankle bracelets would necessarily achieve that, but we’re keeping all options on the table.

Chris Baillie: Does the Minister think we’re in a crime crisis?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It is very clear that there is an escalating level of youth offending, particularly in the upper half of the North Island. I’ve also acknowledged that for the businesses who are victims of that, it is a crisis-like situation. We need to work hard to make sure that there are fewer businesses who find themselves in that position in the first place.

Hon Mark Mitchell: What changes have been proposed by the Police Commissioner in relation to the pursuit policy, as discussed between the Minister and the commissioner?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That’s a matter for the Police Commissioner to announce.

Question No. 7—Justice

7. to the Minister of Justice: Is she confident the justice system is delivering justice to the victims of youth crime?

I think we can all agree that the justice system is in no way perfect, for victims included—which is why we are constantly striving to ensure that we have the right evidence-based settings across the justice system to keep our communities safe.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can she have confidence that justice is being delivered when there have already been more ram raids this year than there were in 2018, 2019, and 2020 combined, but only just over one in three offenders are caught; and of those few that are caught, fewer than two in three are actually prosecuted?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I refer to my first answer. There are many areas which we are seeking to improve. Consistently—as the Minister of Police has already stated in this House today during question time—there has been a considerable uplift in the apprehensions of young people this year.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What hope do victims of crime have when getting justice, when according to Mahmoud Hardan of Quick Picks Convenience Store, front-line police officers are telling victims of ram raids: “We’re very close to catching them, but there’s no point of it as they will only get a slap on the hand.”

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I know that people on this side of the House are engaging with ordinary businesses, police officers, and victims of crime frequently. I think it’s fair to say that there are a range of very useful solutions that have been proposed to us. The thing that we’re really insistent on, on this side of the House, though, is that whatever amendments we make to the youth justice system, they don’t go on to perpetuate and cause more harm for more victims; which is why we take an evidence-based position to the way that we introduce reforms—any reforms—in this area.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has she called for an inquiry into the handling of convicted rapist Jayden Meyer’s case—where a male who was convicted of raping four young women has received nine months’ home detention—and if not, why not?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The member will be well aware that that is squarely within the judicial realm. What I will say, and I want to put this on record clearly in this House—first, I want to acknowledge that those young women came forward. They went through an incredibly tumultuous process, but the fact that they came forward is something that this side of the House has been particularly insistent on ensuring: that we support victims of sexual violence to share their stories. I acknowledge the work of the Hon Marama Davidson in this area. Secondly, what I will say is that on reflection, in reading the High Court judge’s decision, it found that all of the measures that could have ensured a penalty of imprisonment were there, and in this circumstance they were not followed.

Hon Judith Collins: Rubbish.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Read the case. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! We’ll have the question.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What changes, if any, is the Minister considering to the Sentencing Act to ensure that serious crimes do indeed lead to serious consequences, and that victims do indeed receive justice?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I’ll refer to my previous answer. As found in the decision yesterday, of the High Court, there is an appropriate sentencing regime. It is the system that was in place under the previous Government but for the fundamental reforms we made to the three-strikes system.

Question No. 8—Conservation

8. to the Minister of Conservation: How has Jobs for Nature supported local communities with employment opportunities and conservation efforts? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Is the House telling us that we don’t want to hear?

Hon Paul Goldsmith: No, we don’t want to hear.

Hon Member: No, not really. No.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I think we’ll hear this in silence, then.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Jobs for Nature has supported dozens of communities, up and down the country, by investing in local projects that benefit the environment, people, and the regions. Last week, I was in the Chatham Islands and met with the team working on the Jobs for Nature species and habitat restoration project, a project that will create a safer habitat for our native wildlife through additional planting, robust predator control across 2,000 hectares, and comprehensive habitat restoration. This wouldn’t have been possible without the funding support provided through Jobs for Nature, and will go a long way to help us achieve our Predator Free 2050 target.

Paul Eagle: What other Jobs for Nature projects has she visited?

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Save the Eagle!

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: During Conservation Week, I had the opportunity to visit the predator free team on the Miramar Peninsula, which has been able to supercharge its efforts to help Aotearoa meet its Predator Free 2050 objectives. The project is also creating up to 40 employment opportunities on the peninsula and has seen over 10,000 traps set up in backyards all over the city of Wellington.

Paul Eagle: What are the benefits of supporting local communities to get involved in conservation efforts through Jobs for Nature?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: In order to achieve our predator free goals and implement Te Mana o te Taiao, our national biodiversity strategy, we need as many people across the country to get involved in our conservation efforts. That’s why supporting local communities, through Jobs for Nature, to do trapping or planting is so important. These are projects that would either not go ahead, or take much longer to implement, without the support from Jobs for Nature.

Chris Bishop: Are eagles a type of vulnerable and endangered species that the Jobs for Nature programme seeks to protect?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: It’s clear that the National Party set up a programme called Predator Free 2050 and now consider that it is a complete waste of time. Because, as the member said yesterday—as the member said yesterday—Jobs for Nature are a waste of taxpayers’ money. The member, Ms Willis, said that in the House. How can the Government achieve the National Party’s Predator Free 2050 targets without Jobs for Nature?

Hon Michael Wood: Is it true that some—

Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about the status of eagles as vulnerable and endangered species, and the Minister did not even mention the word “eagle” in her answer.

SPEAKER: Yeah, and the member is in danger of losing a supplementary if he continues to take points of order that are clearly out of order. And the question was addressed.

Hon Michael Wood: Is it true that some native species in the Hutt South area became extinct in late 2020?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Yes.

Paul Eagle: Turituri. How is Jobs for Nature supporting New Zealand’s commitment to being predator free by 2050?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: New Zealand committed to Predator Free 2050 in 2016, and we’ve supercharged the efforts to reach that target through a number of Jobs for Nature projects. The results speak for themselves: Miramar Peninsula is now free of stoats, weasels, and Norway rats, and there has been a massive 51 percent increase—[Interruption]—in the native bird population. I think it’s clear that the National Party do not give a fig, an eagle, or an MP’s proverbial for conservation where they laugh through this. They set the targets for Predator Free 2050, did not commit any funding to it, and now make jokes of the fact that there are 4,000 people up and down the country who are planting trees, doing predator-control work, and are contributing to the conservation values of this country. Thank goodness they are, because the National Party would not be able to go out and do their summer walks in the Great Walks without the work of Jobs for Nature doing the track maintenance and all the work that they like to engage in—but they clearly do not want to fund.

Question No. 9—Transport

9. to the Minister of Transport: Does he agree with NZTA’s statement that Kiwis should “slow down and maintain a safe following distance between their vehicle and the one in front to maximise their chance of seeing and responding to a pothole in the road”; if so, why?

Well, as the late, great Peter Brock once said, “Only a fool breaks the two-second rule.”, so, yes, I do agree with Waka Kotahi’s advice to keep a safe following distance. Neither of us would want to be a fool when it comes to road safety, Mr Brown. I also agree with Waka Kotahi’s statement that expenditure had been held “at a constant rate between 2009-10 and 2016-17, by constraining growth in the funding range for State highway maintenance in the GPS meaning that the strong condition of road surfaces and road pavements that existed in 2009 had been consumed and network condition has declined to a point where increased investment is now critical.” This is typical of the National Party. They run down our public assets and then whinge about the inevitable results. Fortunately, our Government has increased road maintenance funding by 50 percent since we came into office, to clean up their mess.

Simeon Brown: What speed should Kiwis drive at to dodge pot-holes, and is dodging pot-holes the reason why the Government has lowered speed limits on hundreds of kilometres of our State highways in the past five years?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: New Zealanders should always drive at a safe speed on our roads. I would have encouraged the National Party to have thought about that more carefully when they froze road maintenance funding for eight years across our State highway network.

Simeon Brown: How far behind another car should Kiwis follow in front of them to maximise their chance of dodging a pot-hole?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Only a fool breaks the two-second rule.

Simeon Brown: How many pot-holes could the New Zealand Transport Authority have fixed with the $30,000 spent on the five big red zeros the Minister was so proud to stand next to?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well, they fixed about 45,000 last year, and interestingly, the biggest number of increased pot-holes occurred between 2016 and 2018 at the end of the last National Party term.

Question No. 10—Economic and Regional Development

10. to the Minister for Economic and Regional Development: What announcements has he made to support regional economies?

Over the weekend, I attended the celebration of the restoration of St Michael’s Church on the Ōhaeāwai pā and battle site, an historically important restored battle site in the context of the 1845-46 northern land wars. After undergoing $1.79 million in Government-backed restoration, it is now a fully-fledged cultural heritage tourism experience. In my opinion, the Battle of Ōhaeāwai pā deserves to rank up there with battles like, for example, Agincourt in 1415. The reason I say this is because this battle involved around 615 British troops against around 100 Māori. The British casualties numbered in the hundreds, and there were less than five Māori killed. After the battle, the British made a couple of models of this pā site and used the Māori tactics to completely rethink their approach to close-contact trench warfare. Chiefs like Pene Taui, who was the architect of this tactic, deserve to sit in the pantheon of great military commanders, innovators, and strategists.

Shanan Halbert: How is the Government supporting historic sites of national importance?

Hon STUART NASH: Ōhaeāwai, located near Kaikohe, in Te Tai Tokerau, Northland, is the second project completed from a $20 million historic sites of national importance allocation from the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF), which is administered by Kānoa - Regional Economic Development and Investment Unit.

Shanan Halbert: Why is it important to restore these sites?

Hon STUART NASH: The restoration of battle sites like Ōhaeāwai allows the descendants of those involved in the war and the wider public to learn about this significant battle, as well as the wider community to benefit from the restored infrastructure. Project coordinator Raima Redden said that the restoration of the church was “the realisation of a long-held dream” for the community.

Shanan Halbert: What other benefits will these investments provide?

Hon STUART NASH: Ōhaeāwai is part of a family of projects that our Government has funded to boost Māori economic development and tourism and to generate employment, growing the local and regional economy. These projects offer a unique tourism activity supporting Māori development and storytelling, and promoting a shared understanding of history.

Shanan Halbert: How else is the Government supporting the Northland economy?

Hon STUART NASH: The Government has provided a range of support to strengthen regional economies like Northland, including investing nearly $800 million from the PGF and other funds across 230 projects. We have invested more than any other recent Government in building the capability, infrastructure, and economic capacity of the regions. That’s a record I’m incredibly proud of.

Question No. 11—Broadcasting and Media

11. to the Minister for Broadcasting and Media: Does he stand by his statements and actions regarding the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill?

Yes, absolutely.

Hon David Bennett: Don’t read it, Willy!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, I have to read it just for your head! In particular, I stand by my remarks made in the House for the bill’s first reading about why it’s so important we create a new public media entity.

Simeon Brown: Tell us why!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, I’m quite happy to do that. What I said then was that “The creation of this new [organisation] will strengthen the delivery of New Zealand’s public media services for future generations. That’s our key objective: that public media in Aotearoa New Zealand is strong and that it endures. With increasing levels of misinformation around the world, a rapidly changing media landscape, and declining commercial revenues projected, New Zealand needs strong, independent public media more than ever. It is critical to the functioning of a healthy democracy. We need a public media entity that can inform, entertain, and educate in a uniquely Kiwi manner. We need strong, independent journalism that holds Government and those in power to account. We need all the people and voices of Aotearoa to be represented not just on our screens but in the [production and] development … of our public media content … We need a public media entity with the flexibility to meet audiences where they are, utilising the platforms New Zealanders are choosing. We need a sustainable funding model that ensures our public media doesn’t just survive but can thrive in its pursuit of public media outcomes. [And we need public media to play its part in strengthening our wider media sector.] This bill provides a foundation to deliver exactly that. It will create Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media, [that] builds on the best of RNZ … and TVNZ.” I stand by all my comments and views and opinions on this very important kaupapa.

SPEAKER: That answer was far too long, and so I will award Melissa Lee with two extra supplementary questions to examine the total totality of the answer that the Minister has given.

Melissa Lee: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister think that concerns raised by Stuff CEO Sinead Boucher that the merger is a—and I quote—“very serious threat to our viability and the viability of the rest of the industry”, and an example of—and I quote—“utterly misplaced hysteria.”, in the Minister’s own words?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I respect Sinead very much; I actually met with her. But I think she’s worrying a little too much. The key for her and for other players in the media, with respect, are partnerships—that’s what this is built on. If the market’s going to work, it will need Stuff to partner up with others. This will, I think, allay her worries and her problems. The entity must not, and should not, overwhelm smaller media entities like Stuff. Stuff needs to work in tandem with other groups, with other newspapers, with other media outlets, with Māori media, and with Pacific media. By doing that, they can address some of the worries that she has in terms of the market. This is about partnership. This is about collaboration. Collaboration is built into the entity, in terms of its future and in terms of how it progresses business.

Melissa Lee: Does the Minister stand by his statement regarding whether future a Government will direct the new public broadcaster for political purposes that—and I quote—“there is always a risk.”, and, if so, is he now conceding the Government’s legislation is, in fact, flawed and is at risk of political interference?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Absolutely not. But there would be a problem, of course, if there was a National Party Government, because, as we all know, they have a record of interfering in terms of what’s happening in society. The editorial side is very clear—very, very clear: any Minister cannot interfere—clause 15(3), have a look, all you members; clause 15 is very clear—into the day-to-day workings of the entity. You cannot direct the entity—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Except their policies.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: In terms of policy, Mr Goldsmith, the Government can advise what Government policy is. We may have a policy on gender equity. Of course, we can celebrate gender equity over here; you cannot—the Opposition cannot. We’ll be celebrating that next week.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I’m probably doing the Government side a favour by sitting you down.

Melissa Lee: How can the Minister justify his statement, and I quote, “There is no way we’ll be telling editors how to run their news.” when he also makes it clear he will require a change of culture; is this not explicitly telling them how to run their organisations, which affects their editorial independence?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Not at all—not at all. In fact, I was talking to Simon Power about this just the other day and he and I are in full agreement that there can’t be any direct interference. In terms of the culture, we’re talking about bringing a commercial entity and a non-commercial entity together. That’s going to require an adjustment. If you don’t like the word “culture”, let’s talk “adjustment”—just for the National Party. That’s going to require an adjustment and, obviously, commercial / non-commercial entities are going to have to work through their processes. I’m looking forward to that and I think we’re all on song—RNZ and TVNZ.

Melissa Lee: Does the Minister stand by his statement, and I quote, “I stand by the sentiment of what I said.”, in relation to his comments on 28 September that “We no longer have trust in national media. No longer is there trust in what’s happening at a national media level. … We need a trusted public broadcaster”; so which part of that answer is he standing by?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: As I clarified in the House a week or two back, of course I stand by the sentiment that the public are losing faith. We do have trusted media; they’re called RNZ and TVNZ. But we also have reducing audiences. The audiences are diminishing. So we have to set up a new entity, a new public media entity, that recognises what’s happening in New Zealand. Our people want to see themselves, hear themselves—Māori, Pasifika, and Asian—and that member should know that better than anyone.

Melissa Lee: Why did the Minister choose not to front on TV3’s The Nation on his plan for the merger and instead dispatch former Government Minister Tracey Martin, who also failed to explain why this Government is wasting $370 million on this merger?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Tracey did a brilliant job, and I will be fronting on the different TV shows after the select committee gives its report back. You must allow process to take its course.

Melissa Lee: Was it his decision not to front the programme, or was it the Prime Minister’s office?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, no, it was my decision—it was my decision. I know the National Party wants to jump on TV all the time, but you’ve got a select committee process running. I assure that member I’ve done many interviews and there’ll be many interviews coming. Don’t worry about that.

Question No. 12—Women

12. to the Minister for Women: What reports of recent progress towards gender equality has she seen?

Today marks 50 years since the Equal Pay Act 1972 was passed, and I’m pleased to inform the House that we are celebrating this anniversary with the milestone of a record low gender pay gap of 7.7 percent in the Public Service. The number of women in leadership continues to trend upwards, with women now holding 55.8 percent of senior leadership positions. However, while a gender pay gap exists in the country there’s no time for complacency, and we need to continue to work towards full elimination of workplace inequality.

Camilla Belich: What progress has she seen on reducing the Māori and Pacific pay gaps in the Public Service?

Hon JAN TINETTI: In the Public Service, the Māori pay gap has fallen to 6.5 percent from 8.3 percent and is now the lowest it has been. The Pacific pay gap has fallen from 17.9 percent to 17.7 percent. Concerted effort by the Public Service to continue to see these track down is continuing, as well as stepping up efforts to close ethnic pay gaps.

Camilla Belich: How has the Equal Pay Act 1972 delivered for New Zealand women?

Hon JAN TINETTI: The Equal Pay Act was a huge achievement for women, but despite enshrining in law a legal right to equal pay for equal work, any substantial progress stalled until the passing of the amendments to the Act in 2020. These amendments have enabled the settlement of historic pay equity claims in female dominated industries. With seven pay equity settlements so far, these settlements remove gender discrimination from pay for more than 104,000 people, with an average pay correction of 33 percent.

Camilla Belich: What action is being taken to reduce the overall gender pay gap in New Zealand?

Hon JAN TINETTI: The overall pay gap in New Zealand is 9.2 percent and has been stagnant for far too long. Evidence shows that one of the tools that could support businesses to shine a light on gender and ethnic pay gaps is mandatory pay transparency reporting. This is why my colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan and I have announced that the National Advisory Council on the Employment of Women will act as a national advisory on pay transparency.

That concludes oral questions. I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill.