Oral Questions

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

The jobs market is continuing to show the resilience of the New Zealand economy. This morning, Stats NZ reported that the number of filled jobs in August rose by 10,312, or 0.4 percent, compared to the previous month’s, going to a record high of 2.32 million. The New Zealand economy is in a strong position despite a challenging global environment. Unemployment is near record lows, and wages are rising above inflation to help deal with cost of living pressures. We’re striking a balance by investing heavily in skills and training while making it easier for businesses to attract overseas workers to get the skills and expertise they need. There is every reason to be optimistic about the road ahead.

Helen White: What does the report say about which industries are creating jobs in the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The gains are broad-based. On an annual basis, the biggest gains have been in construction, professional services, manufacturing, retail, and public administration and safety.

Helen White: What does the Stats NZ report say about which age groups are benefiting from the jobs created in the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The jobs market is continuing to support young New Zealanders. Fifteen- to 19-year-olds made the largest contribution to the increase in filled jobs, making up 17.2 percent of the increase. There have been strong gains in this age group in recent months.

Helen White: What reports has he seen on confidence in the New Zealand jobs market?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Westpac’s employment confidence index rose to 115.2 in the September quarter, its highest level since June 2019. Kiwis remain very upbeat and positive about the range of job opportunities, particularly among young New Zealanders. By region, there were strong gains in Auckland, Waikato, and Wellington, while Otago did ease a little after a sustained rise in confidence over the previous two quarters.

Helen White: How is the global situation affecting New Zealand’s economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The global environment does remain volatile and uncertain. Financial markets, for example, have reacted negatively to the United Kingdom’s fiscal package of tax cuts, with a sharp decline in the value of the sterling and a spike in British borrowing costs. The reaction on the financial markets to the announcement has affected other countries as well, with a rise in bond yields globally, and downward pressure on most currencies relative to the US dollar, including the New Zealand dollar.

Helen White: What are the implications of the current financial markets’ movement for the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It offers a cautionary tale about proposing untargeted tax cuts in an inflationary environment. The International Monetary Fund has expressed its concern in this regard. As we have seen, the reaction on financial markets may result in outcomes that are harmful to an economy’s future recovery following a one-in-100-year economic shock. That would include the ability of Governments to make commitments on spending on health or education or housing or other important investments in areas such as climate change.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Talofa, Mr Speaker. Yes. In particular, I stand by this Government’s decision to increase Pharmac funding by an additional $191 million in Budget 2022. We’re seeing the benefits of that investment. I welcome today’s announcement from Pharmac that they’ll be able to fund two new medicines: SPINRAZA for spinal muscular atrophy and adrenaline auto-injectors, often known as EpiPens, for people at risk of anaphylaxis or life-threatening allergic reactions. These medicines are the direct result of funding committed by this Government. Our Government takes funding medicines seriously. As a result of our funding increases since 2017, Pharmac has made 189 additional funding decisions, including 59 new listings and the widening of access to 130 treatments. But we know there is always more to do. That’s why this Government remains committed to funding our essential public services, including Pharmac, and not funding to borrow tax cuts for the wealthiest New Zealanders.

Christopher Luxon: Why is the Government planning a $3.5 billion jobs tax to fund its income insurance scheme when it’s already raking in $40 billion more in tax each year compared to when it took office?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I said yesterday, the member’s characterisation of social income insurance, I reject. The second point I made yesterday is, of course, we continue to do work on the detail of the regime, but it is being worked through alongside Business New Zealand and trade unions in response to the environment where we will continue to see New Zealanders having to transition through a future where we’re working to make sure that our economy is more sustainable. There was a time when that member was part of a business advisory council that was quite focused on transitioning a just transition for workers. In fact, he joined a study mission to Switzerland, where this proposal is one of the outcomes that Business New Zealand then pursued.

Christopher Luxon: Can she explain to supermarket workers why she’s pushing a scheme the owners of Countdown say will “take much-needed earnings from our team members’ take-home pay, to fund a scheme that they will most likely never need, or ever see the benefit of.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Every year, 100,000 New Zealanders—in average times—face job loss; 200,000 through a period of disruption like a global financial crisis. Unfortunately, in a short period of time, we’ve seen everything from the Christchurch earthquakes, to the global financial crisis, to a pandemic. I wish it was possible to say that workers will not experience such severe disruption; they have. In those times, Government has stepped in. We are looking for a more sustainable long-term way, as most OECD nations have, to ensure that New Zealanders are well looked after.

Hon Michael Wood: Has she seen the statement from FIRST Union which represents supermarket workers saying, “The tripartite agreement between business, government, and unions regarding the creation of a social income insurance scheme is crucial to support people when they need security most.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. Of course, that sits alongside the work we’ve done with the Council of Trade Unions in developing this scheme. But I also note that Business New Zealand has been part of the development as well. I take this quote, for instance, from Business New Zealand: “When these businesses shut down, workers have little money to spend, which means other businesses suffer and the community … go into a long-term economic decline lasting for generations. An income insurance scheme could cushion workers and communities from such abrupt income losses, allowing more time for regions and businesses to adapt.”

Christopher Luxon: Why is she proposing to reduce Kiwis’ take-home pay when their real incomes have already fallen by 3.7 percent over the last year?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I said yesterday, whilst we continue to work through the details of this scheme, implementation would not be anticipated to be any earlier than 2024 or 2025. The reason that we highlight that is, of course, we’re very aware of the economic times that we are in, the disruption that many New Zealand families have experienced and, of course, that is why we have our strong cost of living package to support them. I would then make a wider point here: it has always been Labour Governments that have introduced those things that support families and workers in tough times. Whether or not it’s KiwiSaver or the Super Fund, Labour introduces it, National opposes it, and then they do nothing about it in the future; they keep it because they eventually recognise the support that it provides New Zealanders.

Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that if the Government tries to tax both workers and employers, most of that tax will end up being paid by workers through lower wages or by consumers through higher prices, and, if not, who does she think will pay it?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I reject much of the premise of that question. I again point to the fact that, in some form or another, there are schemes like this in Denmark, Austria, Finland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, the UK, and Germany. Many of the countries that we would liken ourselves to—and, in fact, that the member himself went across to study—have a scheme such as this.

Christopher Luxon: Is the Government still committed to passing the income insurance scheme legislation before the next election?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member had listened to my answers repeatedly in this House yesterday and today, we do not foresee it being implemented any earlier than 2024 or 2025.

Christopher Luxon: Is the Government still committed to passing a first reading of this legislation before the next election?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, but the time at which it would be fully implemented, we would not anticipate being before 2024 or 2025.

Christopher Luxon: Has the Government ruled out reducing income tax or company tax to offset the $3.5 billion cost to the jobs tax?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is making assumptions, when we continue to work through the final details of the levy. Again, I would also point out that the way the member frames this scheme makes an assumption that at times of crisis, when we have implemented this scheme, that that does not come at a cost to taxpayers; it does. We have had to, through times of crisis—and the National Party has been in Government when that has occurred—implement schemes to cushion the blow and stop the large scarring that we see in our economy. We are looking to build a sustainable way of ensuring we have those schemes through future times of crisis.

Christopher Luxon: When she said that final decisions have not yet been made about the income insurance scheme, does that include the decision to tax workers and employers, or just the decision about the size of the tax?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I’ve never heard the member talk about the ACC tax. These are schemes that are designed to go directly into providing support. It is not about increasing Government revenue; it is about directly funding a scheme that benefits wage and income earners directly. It goes entirely into supporting workers and active labour market schemes—something that when the member was a CEO, he used to support.

David Seymour: If the Government’s proposed income insurance levy is not a tax, will people be able to opt out of it voluntarily?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I likened it to ACC for a reason.

Question No. 3—ACC

3. to the Minister for ACC: Talofa, Mr Speaker. What changes has she announced to ACC?

Yesterday, we passed the maternal birth injury and other matters bill. This means that from 1 October 2022, approximately 28,000 mothers, non-binary, transgender, and other gender-diverse people will be able to benefit from ACC cover if they experience injuries during childbirth. I’d like to thank the select committee members from all political parties, officials, stakeholders, providers, health professionals, parents, and everyone who submitted on the bill and who have been part of the process. You have all made a difference.

Angela Roberts: What does this change to ACC mean for birthing parents?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Prior to this change, childbirth was not covered in legislation because it did not meet the Act’s definition of an “accident”. That’s why we’ve taken steps to ensure birth injuries are covered, making changes to the legislation, and including a list of covered injuries. Including cover for these injuries will mean birthing parents can access existing support and treatment available through the accident compensation scheme, including support for mental injuries that are caused by physical injuries.

Angela Roberts: Why is this important?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This is an incredibly important change and represents a significant step towards improving gender balance, fairness, and equity in the ACC scheme. Research I commissioned provided a clear evidence base, highlighting disparities within the scheme. Women make fewer claims to ACC than men, have fewer injuries covered by the accident compensation scheme than men, and each woman’s claim costs the scheme a third less than a man’s, on average, in entitlements. When reconciling the evidence with the rationale for covering birth injuries, it became clear that these injuries—some of which can be incredibly severe—should be covered by ACC. More than 70 percent of people giving birth in Aotearoa New Zealand may experience an injury during labour or birth, and, from 1 October 2022, this new ACC cover will benefit an estimated 28,000 birthing parents.

Angela Roberts: What steps did she take to ensure this change became law?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: In March last year, I read an RNZ article about the growing number of women experiencing injuries when giving birth and their struggle for treatment. It was a distressing read. The policy work began in June 2021, Cabinet signed off on it in August 2021, and on this day one year ago, I announced that we would introduce legislation.

Hon Member: Well done.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The passing of this bill last night marks a significant milestone in ACC history—

Chris Bishop: Oh, announcing something—“Oh, well done.”, she says.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: —and signals positive progress and change for ACC’s future, and I’m unsure why Chris Bishop is interjecting in that way when they supported this bill.

Angela Roberts: What other changes were announced?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The bill also includes 12 other policy and technical changes which provide more support to injured New Zealanders, more clarity of what ACC covers, and equitable cover for claimants. Some of these changes respond to our commitment to roll back Nick Smith’s 2010 ACC changes. One of these changes includes bringing back the claimant-friendly version of the three-step test which is used to assess claims for work-related gradual process injuries. This would shift the burden of proof from workers such as firefighters and sawmill staff, who might suffer from those injuries, back to ACC, which will be required to prove their injuries are not work-related. I’m really pleased with what this bill will achieve. There is always more work to do, but we are certainly on the right track.

Question No. 4—Children

4. to the Minister for Children: Does he have confidence in Oranga Tamariki’s relationships with staff and contractors?

Talofa, Mr Speaker. As I have said before, Oranga Tamariki (OT) is improving and there is room to do better. This path to improvement also extends to how Oranga Tamariki works with and engages with staff and contractors.

Karen Chhour: What specific actions, if any, has the Minister taken in relation to threats of Oranga Tamariki staff striking, and can the Minister guarantee to vulnerable children and whānau that Oranga Tamariki staff will not strike in the next month?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The Oranga Tamariki leadership team has been engaging in good-faith negotiations with the Public Service Association (PSA) to date. I understand that Oranga Tamariki PSA members are voting on industrial action today, and it would be wrong of me to comment on that at this time.

Karen Chhour: What advice has the Minister received in regards to the potential strike, and how many children and families will be affected if the strike does go ahead?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: So Oranga Tamariki has a plan in place to ensure it can still provide the necessary care and support for children, and similar measures have been used successfully throughout COVID as well.

Karen Chhour: For how much money was the contract recently signed between OT and John Tamihere’s charity, and is the Minister reconsidering this contract in light of today’s revelation that his charities are under investigation for bankrolling John Tamihere and the Māori Party’s political campaigns for nearly half a million dollars?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I reject the premise of that question, but let me say that on Friday I was pleased to witness the signing of a partnership agreement between Oranga Tamariki and Waipareira Trust. This agreement supports wraparound, holistic services for whānau under a by Māori, for Māori approach. This agreement recognises the Treaty-based relationship between the trust and Oranga Tamariki under section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, an equity-focused section of the legislation I’m sure the member is familiar with. I’d also just like to thank her for allowing me to raise the issue of how much funding Oranga Tamariki has received since 2017. By the way, the relationship has been in place since 2008, so through the previous National-ACT Government as well. But Oranga Tamariki have received, since 2017, a measly $2.8 million when other providers have received tens of millions of dollars a year.

Karen Chhour: So does the Minister agree with John Tamihere when he says his charity and Oranga Tamariki are in a partnership and not a contract, and, if Te Whānau o Waipareira is struck off the Charities Register, will the Minister guarantee that this partnership will end?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: What the member needs to do is cross the bridge that is Te Tiriti o Waitangi from her Pākehā world into the Māori world and understand exactly how the Māori world operates. It’s no good looking at the world from a vanilla lens.

David Seymour: Point of order. The question is how the Government would respond if an event happened that, I think, would bring the contract into question. Now, unless, somehow, it’s addressing the question to attack the member and her world view, then the question has not been addressed at all.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. The question actually contained a number of parts, including some assertions. The member has addressed the question; he does not have to answer to the satisfaction of the member.

SPEAKER: Yeah, thanks. The question was hypothetical and it did contain an assertion. If members ask such questions, I’ve tended to allow them on the basis that members know full well the type of answer that they might get.

Question No. 5—Health

5. to the Minister of Health: What has the Government recently done to improve the availability of emergency mental health respite care in Dunedin?

I am pleased to confirm that Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand has now contracted to increase crisis respite capacity in Dunedin, from a one-bed service to a five-bed service. Having adequate crisis respite care is a much-needed part of the mental health and addiction system that’s been missing in Dunedin for some time. This expanded crisis respite care—as part of this Government’s commitment to mental health, and delivered under the Time for Change - Te Hurihanga programme—will be another tool to help support people to avoid going to hospital and will provide urgent support in a home-like setting for people experiencing mental distress.

Ingrid Leary: Who will be able to use these beds?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The beds will primarily be for people experiencing mental distress, but it’s anticipated this may include some people with addiction issues too. The beds are for people who present, for example, to the emergency department or their GP, and are distressed, expressing suicidal thoughts, who are manic—or whatever—and who can be supported outside of a hospital setting. It’s expected that the average stay will range between one and four nights, where they can be assessed and transferred to hospital, or, where they recover from the episode.

Ingrid Leary: Will the increase in bed nights cater for current and expected future demand?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes. Our Government has remained committed to not only addressing the deficit we inherited in mental health care from the previous Government but planning for our growing population’s future needs. Historically in this region, the region of Ōtepoti Dunedin, there has been only one bed contracted by the former district health board or Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand, with no NGO clinical oversight. Demand and usage will be monitored and, if needed, it could be increased in the future to deliver addiction beds.

Ingrid Leary: How has Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand worked to ensure this service can operate at capacity?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Previously, the local provider Pact was only contracted to deliver one crisis respite bed from a small facility that wasn’t fit for purpose. As a result of feedback from the community, Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand identified the need for more capacity as soon as possible and worked with the provider to now increase its capacity to five.

Ingrid Leary: How many hospital beds at Dunedin Hospital does the Minister expect will be freed up by the increased capacity?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: An important focus over winter has been to support reducing pressure on our hospital system so that it has the capacity to care for those who need hospital-level care. If this respite service is used at capacity by Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand, mental health crisis response services, and primary care, then up to 1,825 bed nights each year will be freed up from being used in in-patient settings. This is important, as the system considers every possible step that can be taken to ease pressure on the front line at our hospitals should be taken.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with Otago University economist Dennis Wesselbaum that the Government’s income insurance scheme will “increase unemployment, increase the duration of unemployment, reduce income, increase inequality, and lead to higher inflation”; if so, how can he justify asking Kiwis to pay for it?

In answer to the first part of the question, no, I do not agree with those comments made in December 2021. As I noted yesterday, we’re one of the few countries in the OECD that doesn’t have a scheme like this. Many countries have decades-long experience with social insurance schemes, and they generally believe that they are a fundamental part of a social security framework.

Nicola Willis: How does he reconcile his statement yesterday that details of this scheme are yet to be worked out with the commitment made in this year’s Budget forecast for jobs tax levies to be collecting $4.7 billion by 2026?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The characterisation the member makes is, once again, incorrect for what is a social insurance scheme. The member would also note that all of that money then recycles back out; that’s why it’s called a levy.

Nicola Willis: Does he think a New Zealander earning $60,000 a year, facing the fastest-rising prices in 32 years, can afford to pay $834 more tax each year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As has already been indicated both yesterday and today, the scheme is not designed to come into force until at least 2024 or 2025. A person earning $60,000 a year would be paying $16 into the scheme per week and would receive, should they need to draw down on it, $780 a week. This is a scheme designed to support people who earn around $60,000 a year, who don’t have redundancy agreements, who don’t have health insurance, and who don’t have income insurance. This is a scheme common around the world as part of a social security framework.

Nicola Willis: Will he listen to New Zealanders who have spoken out against the jobs tax, including 15,000 Kiwis who have already signed the petition National launched yesterday, or is he determined to force through this tax, no matter what?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Here’s a deal for the member: if the member wants to debate the question of whether or not New Zealand should have an income insurance scheme, like most other countries in the OECD, then let’s debate that on the facts. This is a scheme common around the world. It’s a scheme to fill a gap that the National Party felt the need to fill the gap of after the Christchurch earthquakes. And when Mr Luxon went on his Go Swiss adventure in 2017, he and his colleagues in the business community supported this. The scheme has been designed with Business New Zealand and the Council of Trade Unions; it is an important part of a future social security framework.

Nicola Willis: Does he understand that asking families to give up more of their pay for his pet project will make it harder for them to pay their bills and build their own savings, and why is he prioritising his scheme over their needs?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What this scheme is about is making sure that hard-working people who lose their job through no fault of their own, like a redundancy or an illness like cancer, actually get some support to be able to get a new job, to be able to retrain. The member can continue to mischaracterise the scheme, but this is a scheme designed to help working New Zealanders.

Question No. 7—Environment

7. to the Minister for the Environment: How has fast-track consenting supported the development of infrastructure in New Zealand, and what reports, if any, has he seen on infrastructure consenting costs outside of the fast-track process?

A recent Infrastructure Commission report on consenting infrastructure projects found the costs of consents for medium-sized infrastructure projects have increased 150 percent over the last 10 years. Costs are 250 percent of what they were a decade ago and infrastructure developers are collectively spending $1.29 billion annually on resource consent processes, representing 5.5 percent of project costs. New Zealand is at the extreme end of approval costs with equivalent costs in the UK or the European Union being between 0.1 percent and 5 percent of project costs. The time taken to make decisions on consent applications has also increased in New Zealand by as much as 150 percent over 10 years. Fast-track consenting has cut the average time for consenting by 15 months and for larger infrastructure projects by 18 to 24 months.

Tāmati Coffey: How many projects have gone through the fast-track consenting process and how many jobs will they create?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Fifty-four projects have been referred for fast-track consenting and 30 projects have so far been consented. These consented projects are expected to provide up to 7,700 annualised full-time equivalent jobs.

Tāmati Coffey: What transport projects have been consented through the fast-track process?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Major transport projects include the Queenstown bypass, the Drury Central and Paerata stations, the Ngauranga to Pētone shared path, and the Picton ferry terminal redevelopment. These major projects all received consents far more quickly and at a lower cost than would have been the case through standard Resource Management Act (RMA) processes.

Tāmati Coffey: How many houses have been consented through the fast-track process?

Hon DAVID PARKER: A total of 10,193 housing consents have so far been referred for fast tracking and 4,142 have, so far, been consented. This has made a significant difference to increasing housing supply.

Tāmati Coffey: And will fast-track consenting be included in the replacement for the RMA?

Hon DAVID PARKER: As the Infrastructure Commission has confirmed, consents for infrastructure projects in New Zealand generally take too long and cost too much. Therefore, a form of fast-track consenting will continue in the Natural and Built Environments Act (NBA) and the Spatial Planning Act. This will work in concert with other crucial changes which will flow from Strategic Planning Act plans into NBA plans via improved designations. These changes collectively will save the country many hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

Question No. 8—Health

8. to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that the response he gave to the House last week that 29,189 people have been waiting more than four months on the surgical waiting list is the highest number recorded since October 2017, and how many of the 5,513 waiting more than 12 months on that list have presented to an emergency department for that condition while they waited for surgery?

In answer to the first part of the question, the figure given last week of 29,189 people waiting more than four months for surgical and other treatment was as at 31 July 2022, which is the most current data we have. As I also said last week, the number of people waiting longer than four months changes daily because of procedures being completed and people falling into that waiting period. While that number is the highest number of people waiting for surgical procedures since October 2017, the member should note, firstly, that our health system, like all others around the world, has suffered significant disruption because of the COVID pandemic. Secondly, disruption to planned care happened in order for hospitals to meet the demands created by COVID and, more recently, the winter flu season. Thirdly, waiting times in excess of four months have fluctuated throughout the pandemic as hospitals picked up the delivery of planned care when infections were low, such as going from 15,461 in May 2020 to 7,738 in September 2020, and 13,018 in March 2021 to 12,566 in June 2021. Fourthly, the health system is prioritising planned care right now, since the planned care task force started its work and since Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand’s chief executive directive in July. In response to the second part of the question, officials advise me that the relevant data is not collected at the time of presentation to an emergency department to know whether the condition a patient has presented with is related to a condition for which they may be awaiting treatment

Dr Shane Reti: Will every person who has been waiting more than 12 months be booked for surgery by this Friday, as directed by Health New Zealand; if not, why not?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The advice I’ve had from Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand is that good progress is being made in clearing the waiting list for those waiting more than 12 months. The latest data I saw suggested that that waiting list has fallen by 50 percent as at roughly the end of August, and I expect good progress to continue to be made.

Dr Shane Reti: In what time frame, then, can most of the 5,513 people who have already waited 12 months expect to have their surgery?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: What I think those who are waiting for their procedures can know is that, with the system we have now and the leadership it is under now, every effort is being made to make sure that those waiting the longest will get their treatment in a system that has also had to balance the need to continue to respond to COVID-19 and also deal with one of the worst flu outbreaks we have had in the history of this country.

Dr Shane Reti: Did the surgical wait-list go up by more than a thousand people over the three months since he formed his high-performance task workforce?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Since the task force was established in May, this country has experienced the worst flu outbreak in its history—since 1918. I know that on “Planet National” you can have a global pandemic and a massive flu outbreak and the health system doesn’t bat an eyelid. In the real world, we have a health system that has to respond to every challenge before it and sometimes has to make difficult decisions when it makes priorities.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Minister seen reports that DHBs previously managed hospital waiting lists by declining people’s first specialist assessment on the basis that there was no space available on the waiting list?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I can confirm that, as of a few years ago—certainly under the previous Government—the way that hospitals managed waiting lists was that if people could not be seen within a four-month period they were simply told, “You cannot come here; go back to your GP.”, and that data was never recorded.

Dr Shane Reti: Can he confirm that Waikato DHB created a second list where they moved people off the surgical list to send them back to their GPs?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I can confirm that that member’s track record of getting his dates wrong and mischaracterising things continues apace. That did not happen.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

9. to the Prime Minister: Talofa, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and actions?

Yes.

Dr Gaurav Sharma: Who does the Prime Minister think deserves to get diplomatic protection and police security: politicians who are being threatened by disruptive crowds, as mentioned by Acting Prime Minister Grant Robertson last week, or should it be everyday New Zealanders who are seeing, on average, 10 ram raids a week in front of their eyes in broad daylight?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Decisions around security for politicians are operational.

Dr Gaurav Sharma: What does the Prime Minister say to Hamilton-based small and medium businesses who have been ram-raided and are having to pay for repairs out of pocket or face increased insurance premiums due to the inability of the Government to bring crime under control, and will the Prime Minister and her Government pay for the damages occurring on her watch?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We stand by the funding that’s been provided to ensure that up to 500 businesses will be supported to protect and prevent the actions of those involved in ram raids. I welcome news overnight—as the police continue to ensure that those who are engaged are held to account—that there have been, just for example, 14 arrests just overnight relating to recent activity in Tāmaki-makau-rau and the Waikato.

Dr Gaurav Sharma: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That doesn’t answer the question about—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order, Dr Gaurav Sharma

Dr Gaurav Sharma: —thank you, sorry—that the arrest doesn’t actually answer the question: will the Government be paying for businesses who have been affected by ram raids?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question has been addressed.

Question No. 10—Broadcasting and Media

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

Yes. I stand by all the statements in the context that they were made.

Melissa Lee: Can the Minister confirm the $370 million merger of RNZ and TVNZ has no regulatory impact statement or cost-benefit analysis?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I can confirm, as of yesterday, that there is $109 million per annum in new funding in terms of this new entity, and that the member has got her funding all out of sync. This is an investment in terms of New Zealand culture that the member seems to completely misunderstand. The $320 million that she keeps talking about in terms of creating a new merger is not true. In fact, the cost of the new merger is going to cost this Government, in terms of establishment, a mere $40 million over four years.

SPEAKER: The main part of that has not been addressed. You can ask an extra question.

Melissa Lee: Asking again, can the Minister confirm the $370 million merger of RNZ and TVNZ has no regulatory impact statement or cost-benefit analysis?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’ll come back to the member on that.

SPEAKER: I think that deserves even another extra question.

Melissa Lee: Why does the Minister not know if, in fact, this huge move by the Government to merge the two biggest public media entities has, in fact, had a regulatory impact statement or even a cost-benefit analysis when they’re spending $370 million of taxpayer money?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We’ve had a clear cost-benefit analysis in terms of this project.

Hon Members: Where?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Come to my office and we’ll show you.

Melissa Lee: Is it a good use of $370 million of taxpayers’ money in a cost of living crisis to merge RNZ and TVNZ when submitters to the select committee have said there is, and I quote, “no vision or substantial rationale for the merger, and it is rightly viewed as a doomsday machine if improperly handled.”?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We’ve said this before that the problem of the National Party is that it’s never a good time to invest in anything. That was the same with the health system. That was the same with the housing set-up. It’s the same with the education system. The reality is, we see this entity as being incredibly important in terms of the New Zealand national identity, and I want to say to the member in this House—Maurice Williamson said the same thing when we set up Māori Television: how can you invest in Māori television when Māori health is so bad, when Māori education is so bad—

SPEAKER: Nō reira. E noho.

Melissa Lee: Can the Minister confirm he will continue to direct the merged RNZ and TVNZ entity, to quote his words, “change its attitude and culture”, and is it not an attempt to assert political control before the merger has even taken place?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Not at all. Not at all. No—not at all. We’re going to have a charter that the merger will be working by, but it’s better to get the rules straight from the start. The reality is, we want TVNZ to work in tandem with us, and they’re doing that because New Zealand has changed. 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, because national identity is incredibly important, and no longer do people trust New Zealand television or New Zealand radio. Our last survey told us that New Zealand radio is the second-most listened-to medium; New Zealand television is fourth—second and fourth. So we need a national broadcaster for a great public identity.

Melissa Lee: What does the Minister think “editorial independence” means?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: It means the decision to be able to make your own decisions without Government influence. That is the intention of this entity. That is the way we will progress. That is the way we will proceed. There’s no way we’ll be telling editors how to run their news. We will be clear that we require a change of culture. It’s not just about making money; it’s about New Zealanders feeling proud knowing who they are. We need a different New Zealand voice recognising Māori, Pasifika, Asian, and other ethnic minorities. It’s not just about one group any more.

Naisi Chen: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Supplementary, Naisi Chen. [Interruption] Order!

Naisi Chen: Talofa, Mr Speaker. So why is it important to invest in public media?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: For the Opposition again, every democracy in the world invests in public media to support their democracies and culture. That’s the case of the BBC. That’s the case in Ireland, Australia, and Canada. We absolutely believe New Zealanders deserve that too. They should be able to see themselves and hear themselves. It’s not just about one group of people. There are currently pressures on our public media. They’re fighting for audiences at the moment with the multinational giants. Audiences, especially young people, have switched to online platforms. It can’t be about them just—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! That’s enough.

Melissa Lee: In his answer to questions yesterday, why did he say—and I quote—“we encourage people and agencies to give feedback. We don’t mind criticism.”, only to contradict himself by saying that the submitters who criticised the bill were wrong?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’m allowed to have an opinion. I’m allowed to have a view. They have every right to put a submission; I have every right to give my opinion. That’s how it works. We encourage submitters to keep giving their views. If you want to ask me questions on their views, keep asking questions.

Melissa Lee: Does the Minister believe that anyone who criticised him or the bill are, in fact, wrong?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Sometimes, people will be right, and sometimes they will be wrong. That’s how it works sometimes with submissions. But we encourage the submissions and we’ve had some excellent submissions. But we don’t get all sensitive when there’s a bit of criticism. We encourage it; we support it. That’s why we’re going so well in the polls at the moment, and you’re not.

Question No. 11—Immigration

11. to the Minister of Immigration: Talofa, Mr Speaker. What changes has he announced to the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme?

Yesterday, I announced that the next steps in the Government’s response to global workforce shortages include providing 3,000 additional places for the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme for the coming year. The new RSE cap will allow access to 19,000 workers annually from participating Pacific countries, providing critical support to our horticulture and wine sectors. We’ve listened to feedback from workers and industries about the scheme, and have worked closely with them to ensure that we strike the right balance of incentivising local employment, bringing in additional workers, and requiring improvements to working conditions.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What has been different in the approach taken to setting the RSE cap this year?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: This year, for the very first time, the RSE cap was sent through a robust tripartite process involving unions representing RSE workers, and employers from the horticulture and viticulture sectors. By working together to agree on key areas for improvements to the RSE scheme, this approach has added assurance to our decision to increase the cap and helped us to chart a way forward for ongoing tripartite engagement and improvement to working conditions. I want to thank the unions involved, including the Council of Trade Unions, FIRST, and AWUNZ, and members of the industry, including Horticulture New Zealand, Wine New Zealand, and Apples & Pears for engaging so constructively.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How will RSE workers’ rights be improved under the scheme as a result of the cap increase?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well, the rights of RSE workers are a priority for our Government, and we’ve worked closely with the industry and unions to get their support to make improvements across five key areas as part of the cap increase. This includes improved benefits for RSE workers, particularly relating to sick leave and deduction for things like travel and wet weather gear; accommodation standards in housing; transparent information in their own languages for RSE workers about what support is available; improved management and oversight of poor RSE employers; and independent support for RSE workers, to assist them.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What reactions has he seen to his announcement about the RSE scheme?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I’ve seen a range of very positive reactions welcoming the announcement. Business New Zealand “welcome the Government’s announcement of another 3,000 places for seasonal workers to help ease workforce pressure”. FIRST Union’s general secretary Dennis Maga said, “The sick leave entitlement was long overdue.” And, finally, Horticulture New Zealand chief executive Nadine Tunley said, “This decision gives growers confidence to continue to invest as they go into the 2022-23 harvest season.”

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What are the next steps to progress improvements to the RSE scheme?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: In the coming weeks, the Government will continue to consult and work with the industry and unions on further short-term improvements and employee safeguards to provide greater protection to workers. This will build on our wider first-principles view of the RSE scheme which, as I previously signalled, will commence in early 2023.

Question No. 12—Social Development and Employment

12. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement, “the welfare system should not be used as a tool for the justice system”; if so, does she still support the use of the warrant to arrest sanction policy?

Yes, I do stand by my statement. I also stand by our record of an 87 percent drop in sanctions that impact children since June 2017; 95,000 sole parents better off by $166 per week on average than they were in 2017; and a drop in the number of children in poverty by 66,500, because this Government is focused on making progress to improve the wellbeing of New Zealand families. In regards to the second part of the question, I do not support the use of the warrant-to-arrest sanction, but the work has paused. There is so much work under way in the welfare and employment areas. As Minister, I have to prioritise the work we have on the work programme. The accomplishments I listed off indicate we are getting the mahi done.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What further work beyond advice that she has already received in the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report does she need to do to end the warrant-to-arrest benefit sanctions she doesn’t agree with?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Cross-agency work would be required in order to develop the legislation and operationalise the removal. The extensive amount of work already under way by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) means that that is not possible at the moment. The work under way at the moment includes implementing child support pass-on; rolling out the increase in dental grants; leading the Working for Families review; working with the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development on the emergency housing review; rolling out the expansion of Mana in Mahi, He Poutama Rangatahi, and Māori trades training; working across Government on addressing youth crime and improving youth engagement; reducing and preventing debt; and continuing our social sector commissioning work. This is on top of our business as usual, which is supporting thousands of New Zealanders every day.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she concerned that record numbers of families have been sanctioned by the warrant-to-arrest sanction under her watch, leaving children without sufficient income to live with, when she doesn’t even agree with this harmful sanction?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The number of people receiving a sanction for warrant to arrest has grown slowly since 2017 but can fluctuate from quarter to quarter. This is because the total notifications from the Ministry of Justice have increased. MSD does not control this. But if we look at the impacts that the two sanctions we have repealed have had compared to the warrants to arrest—one for children—I think we see some stark difference in numbers. The removal of section 192 was estimated to benefit 24,000 children, and the removal of the subsequent child policy was estimated to benefit over 40,000 children, based on 2021 data. That compares to around 975 children through warrant to arrest over the period of a year. We do have to prioritise. We can’t do everything at once. As I’ve said to that member, the work has paused on that particular sanction.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How many more families with children is she comfortable sanctioning for things like outstanding parking fines before she starts prioritising ending a sanction that she doesn’t even agree with?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I’ve given a really clear rationale for why that work needed to pause. I’m very much focused as well on ensuring that, where children’s parents are able to work, we have a welfare system with employment support that supports them to get the upskilling and training that they need to get into the employment that they’re able to get into. That is also good for those children.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agreed with Labour MP Jacinda Ardern, who, when debating and voting against the introduction of the warrant-to-arrest sanction by National, said, “People who are on benefits are either criminals, drug takers or abusing their children in some way—this is the message these welfare reforms send.”; if so, why is she upholding a policy that treats people receiving a benefit as criminals, drug takers, or abusing their children in some way?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I’ve said, I do not support the particular sanction, and I do agree with the comments that the Prime Minister has made in the past on this particular sanction, but for the reasons that I’ve already outlined—and it is around prioritising what’s on our work programme—it is a piece of work that I’ve had to pause.

Ricardo Menéndez March: When can she commit to begin prioritising the work to end the warrant-to-arrest sanction?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I’m not going to commit to a time for that at the moment. As I’ve already outlined, we have a heavy work programme that is part of our Government’s welfare overhaul programme. Those reforms will take some time, but we have already accomplished a lot. There’s just much more to do, and we recognise that.