Oral Questions

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

The International Monetary Fund, on Saturday, released its annual review for New Zealand, where they reiterated that New Zealand had found itself in a strong position as a result of the successful management of the pandemic, with strong health and economic policies supporting a quick recovery from lockdowns in 2021. They again highlighted that the economy had rebounded strongly in 2021 and that the expected border reopening will provide an additional economic boost to the tourism and education sectors. The IMF also noted that our public debt levels are expected to remain low compared with many of the countries we compare ourselves with, that our debt sustainability remains robust, and that there is substantial headroom to respond to further challenges.

Barbara Edmonds: What did the report say about fiscal policy supporting the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The IMF noted that New Zealand had started withdrawing across-the-board fiscal support due to the strong position we find ourselves in and that the pace of that withdrawal was appropriate. It says that, given the highly uncertain global environment, fiscal policy should remain nimble as economic conditions and the pandemic evolves and provide for additional targeted support where needed. Fiscal policy should also focus on promoting long-term growth while addressing emerging structural issues. We are taking a balanced approach and making sure that our spending continues to be carefully prioritised and targeted at the areas and people that require it the most, including supporting low and middle income New Zealanders dealing with cost of living pressures, through increases to Working for Families, superannuation, benefit levels, student allowances, and the minimum wage, as well as the resumption of the winter energy payment. Of course, we’ve also reduced fuel excise duty and road-user charges, and halved public transport fares.

Barbara Edmonds: What other reports has he seen on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The resilience of the jobs market is continuing to support the economy. The SEEK NZ Employment Report rose 2.6 percent last month compared to March to a record high and is up 50 percent for the year. The BNZ said that this mirrored recent surveys, showing that firms do intend to hire more people. BNZ said the easing of restrictions was reflected in hospitality and tourism, with a 30 percent jump in job ads. Some of the—[ringing sound in Chamber] Some regions, such as Otago, which have a reliance on tourism, have exhibited the biggest gains. The strong jobs market shows that the Government’s actions in response to COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic have proven to be the best economic approach, and the opening of the borders to foreign workers and tourists will accelerate this growth.

SPEAKER: That was a rather unsubtle comment on the length of the answer.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, particularly this Government’s decision to partner with businesses to get ahead, transition to low-emission alternatives, reduce their reliance on volatile global energy markets, improve productivity, and futureproof our energy system to ensure that a cheaper, more secure energy supply becomes the norm. As part of our emissions reductions plan, we’re investing $650 million over four years to increase the size of the funding available to the successful Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry (GIDI) programme, enabling us to expand support to small business, and increase the number and type of projects that receive money, including high-impact decarbonisation projects of national significance. The original $69 million GIDI fund has been a huge success, having helped fund 53 major industrial decarbonisation projects, all contracted for completion by April 2024, and over their lifetime are estimated to save 7.46 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, equivalent to taking 134,000 cars off the road.

Christopher Luxon: How can Kiwis have any confidence in tomorrow’s Budget spending announcements, when KiwiBuild—the Government’s flagship announcement in 2017—has only delivered 1.3 percent of the 100,000 houses that were promised?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because if you look over the lifetime of this Government and the investment that we have made consecutively through each of our Budgets, they have been unapologetically focused on New Zealanders and reducing the impacts of cost of living right from back to 2017. We started the public housing build programme, for instance, in Budget 2018, and it’s now delivered over 9,000 public houses. But we did more than that. In that first Budget, we extended free and low-cost doctors visits to children under 14—now reaching 56,000 young people—and extended eligibility for the community services card. We’ve now, through the Warmer Kiwi Homes project—which we announced in that first 2018 Budget—seen almost 80,000 homes insulated and heating installed. I could speak to examples in Budget 2020 and Budget 2021 where we’ve done the same.

Christopher Luxon: How can Kiwis have any confidence in tomorrow’s Budget spending announcements when this Government once promised to improve housing affordability, but instead delivered the fastest house price growth on record and a 360 percent increase in the State house wait-list?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, here I would contrast the Government’s investment in housing, which remains a critical focus for us, against the pledge of the Opposition to do nothing more than (a) sell public housing, as they did when they were in office; and (b) Resource Management Act reform, which this Government was the first to progress—despite them having nine years, they did nothing. As I’ve already said, 9,000 public homes have been built under this Government, more homes than any Government since the 1970s. We have record consents continuing to be delivered, demonstrating the work we’ve done to ensure that we have that ongoing stimulus in our housing market. This sits alongside the work we’ve done on transitional housing places, homelessness response, and our ongoing [Audio missing] continuing to get first-home buyers into the market. Finally, I contrast the work we have done to even the playing field for first-home buyers against the Opposition’s plan, which is to put $1 billion back into the pockets of those who speculate in the housing market.

David Seymour: If a publicly owned home is sold, as the Prime Minister just accused the Opposition of doing, can people still live in it or does it magically disappear?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, what I can tell you it doesn’t do is house those on the lowest incomes who need income-related rents and access to housing which is more affordable. That is exactly what we saw with the sell-down under the last National Government.

David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister tell the House the current market price of a New Zealand unit under the emissions trading scheme (ETS), and can she name one initiative in the emissions reduction plan announced this week that will reduce carbon emissions for less than that amount per tonne?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The current price, if my memory serves, is around $76, and if we were to stick with the plan—if you can call it that—that seems to be proposed by both ACT and National, it is to allow the ETS and the carbon price to do all the heavy lifting for the emissions reductions that New Zealand needs to undertake. That would mean, for instance, if we wanted to see the same reduction that we’re proposing in an increase in the uptake of low-emissions vehicles, you would have to see a considerable increase in that carbon price, and that would mean New Zealanders would, for instance, be paying at the pump.

Christopher Luxon: How can Kiwis have any confidence in tomorrow’s Budget spending announcements, when one of her first big promises—Auckland light rail—was supposed to be finished two years ago, but still doesn’t even have a business case, let alone a single piece of track?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because in the middle of an economic crisis, the likes of which we’ve not seen in a hundred years, we have received two triple A credit ratings from the two leading agencies, GDP is up 5.6 percent, we have some of the lowest unemployment on record, and our economy is in a better position than it was pre-COVID. If the only other point of comparison is, for instance, how this Government has done compared to the Government post the last economic crisis from the global financial crisis, then, toe to toe, we have outperformed.

Christopher Luxon: How can Kiwis have any confidence in tomorrow’s Budget spending announcements, when, despite announcing $1.9 billion for mental health, the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission found that there has been no increase in access to specialist mental health services for the last five years?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I notice the member is wilful in ignoring some of the substantive points that were made by the commission, which acknowledged, of course, that the over a billion dollars’ worth of mental health spending that was put in by this Government was focused on building primary mental health care, which previously did not exist in this country, and as a result we’re seeing tens of thousands of appointments now available to New Zealanders that did not exist before. In addition, you’ve seen pre-Budget announcements just this week of additional funding going into acute mental health, which is another area of need. But if we want to reduce demand in acute mental health, we must provide earlier interventions for more New Zealanders, which is exactly what this Government has done.

Christopher Luxon: How can Kiwis have any confidence in this Government’s spending announcements in education, when, despite spending $5 billion more per year, there’s been zero improvement in maths and literacy, and only 60 percent of our children are attending school regularly?

Hon Chris Hipkins: Based on what statistic?

Hon Grant Robertson: Making it up.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because that additional investment—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I apologise to the Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister knows that it is out of order to accuse a member of making something up.

Hon Grant Robertson: I withdraw and apologise.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because, as the member may or may not know, the considerable investment that we’ve put in as a Government has been to overcome years of under-investment in our education system. That includes school property, of which we have put in $1.2 billion; and including, for instance, dealing with pay equity issues in the sector, to the tune of over $700 million; learning support, to the tune of $260 million; making it more affordable for our parents to access education for their kids by removing the requirement for donations; making it more accessible for our kids to go into post - secondary education, with first-years free; and a policy I’m especially proud of because of the impact it has on families with low incomes: the healthy school lunch programme. All of these are investments we’ve made into our education system which ultimately improve access and ensure that kids have access to the school services they deserve.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the most recent literacy and numeracy statistics available were from the Programme for International Student Assessment survey that was taken shortly after Labour formed the Government, of 15-year-olds, who’d received the vast majority of their schooling under the last National Government?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I can confirm that, and I also note this is a pattern of behaviour from the Opposition. When we first came into office, they spent a considerable amount of time accusing us of not having improved child poverty, when, in fact, the statistics they were using were for their time in office.

Christopher Luxon: Isn’t it the case that when this Government announces billions of dollars of more spending in tomorrow’s Budget, New Zealanders now know that all that new spending does not mean better outcomes because we have a Labour Government that simply cannot get things done?

SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister—

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: No, no. Order! That question is not in order.

Question No. 3—Health

3. to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made on expanding mental health and addiction services?

Yesterday, I announced $190 million of investments over four years to allow the expansion of Mana Ake into five new areas and to improve specialist mental health and addiction services for those New Zealanders who have the highest mental health and addiction needs; $100 million of this funding will go towards easing some of the immediate pressures on specialist services over time by increasing the capacity of these services to see more people and by trialling new models of support to better meet people’s needs. Mana Ake is a school-based programme that gives children the skills and support to deal with issues that include grief, loss, parental separation, and bullying. In April 2021, the Prime Minister and I announced $12 million for the co-design of locally relevant Mana Ake services in Northland, Counties Manukau, Bay of Plenty, and Lakes and West Coast regions. The co-design has taken place, and we now know what services are practically required in those areas and how they might be delivered. The $90 million I announced yesterday will allow the service delivery of Mana Ake in those new areas.

Willow-Jean Prime: Why is this funding needed for specialist mental health and addiction services?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Specialist mental health and addiction services have been under considerable pressure for a long time. This means there are often waiting times for people to access the help that they need. People with severe mental health and addiction issues, and their families, have been patient in the face of inaction by previous Governments. For many people with severe mental health and addiction needs, treatment is most appropriately provided outside a traditional hospital setting. That’s why the funding I announced yesterday will include $27 million for community-based crisis services that will deliver a variety of intensive supports, such as residential and home-based crisis respite, community crisis teams, co-response teams, and peer-led services in the community and as part of care teams, and $18.7 million to enhance existing specialist child and adolescent mental health and addiction services so that around 1,300 young people can be supported by more clinical, peer-support, and cultural-support staff. This is a critical next step in rebuilding our mental health and addiction system.

Willow-Jean Prime: How many children will now have access to the Mana Ake programme, and what kind of services will they now have access to?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: One hundred and ninety five thousand primary- and intermediate-aged children will benefit from the continuation and expansion of Mana Ake services. Mana Ake empowers children with resilience and support when and where they need it to confidently cope with whatever life throws at them. The mental wellbeing supports provided by this initiative will vary by area, reflecting the needs of each community in their local context. The Mana Ake programme has a range of supports, which include whole-of-classroom approaches to promote mental wellbeing and increased resilience across the whole school population, targeted initiatives delivered face to face for children experiencing mild to moderate levels of distress, and group-based supports and support for whānau.

Question No. 4—Agriculture

4. to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he stand by his statement that “the Government looks to all sectors to pull their weight with the Emissions Reduction Plan”; if so, does he believe agriculture will be pulling its weight over the first three emissions budget periods?

Nicola Grigg: Hates farmers.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Which member—was that Nicola Grigg who interjected then?

Nicola Grigg: Yes, sir.

SPEAKER: Right. That’s not helpful, especially given what happened yesterday.

Of course I do. Climate change is one of the biggest challenges of our time and it is critical that all sectors play a part in reducing emissions so we can avoid the worst effects of climate change. This is particularly true for New Zealand’s farmers and growers, who are some of the most vulnerable in New Zealand to the effects of droughts, floods, and other direct effects of climate change. Another important reason why agriculture must look to reduce its emissions is market drivers offshore. Customers and consumers abroad are increasingly demanding products with low emissions and high sustainability. So New Zealand’s continued ongoing economic strength built off our world-leading food and fibre sector is dependent on continued innovation and adaptation to a lower-emissions agricultural sector. Yes, agriculture must play a part in reducing emissions, and it is doing so through the emissions reduction plan announced on Monday, which will see the sector on track to meet emissions budget targets. By 2025, we will continue to incentivise change by bringing in the world’s first emissions pricing system for agriculture.

Teanau Tuiono: What does he say to groups like Greenpeace and scientists who say that reducing herd sizes and phasing out synthetic fertiliser are major tools to reduce our emissions and protect the environment?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: There are two parts to that. In terms of nitrous oxide, for example, the Government brought in a maximum level of 190 kilograms per hectare of synthetic nitrogen that could be applied. The issue of methane, biogenic methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide, they all play a different part in the system, they all have different life cycles, and the Government’s working on all these particular areas. The issue of stock numbers and stocking rates: it is simply not sensible to have a set figure per hectare across the variants of soil types, of farming systems, and of individual capabilities of the farmers. So we think we’re doing the right thing in working with the industry.

Teanau Tuiono: Is agriculture the only sector to receive funding from the climate emergency relief fund without contributing to the fund through the emissions trading scheme (ETS) revenue, and, if so, what additional steps will be needed to ensure agriculture pulls its weight in reducing emissions?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The primary sectors have earned, this year, over $50 billion in export earnings; they don’t do that by paying no commitment and no funding to the ETS. Everything they do, by way of fuel and energy, means they contribute. So they have contributed a large part already to the ETS. What we’re doing here is front-loading some funding for more research and development, and to accelerate that knowledge into the hands of farmers, to get it out there, and to make sure that we will—a system to reduce the emissions over time. Agriculture has a big part to play. It will ramp up as those tools get into the hands of farmers.

Mark Cameron: Does he stand by his statement in question time yesterday when he said he was a creating a “centre for climate action”, and when will the new centre for climate change action group ensure that Bovaer is approved for use in New Zealand, and, if so, when will that be?

SPEAKER: One of the three questions.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Bovaer is a Dutch technology that is fed to animals about 12 times a day, I am told. It doesn’t suit with the New Zealand pastoral-based system. Also, there’s an issue of definition of “Is it a medicine or is it a fertiliser?” We’re working through that. We will make the adjustments to allow that technology to be trialled, but what happened previously when we used a technology like that, dicyandiamide was applied to the pasture, was then picked up as a residue offshore, and put all our exports at risk. We don’t want to run the risk of that happening again, so we’re being cautious in this area.

Teanau Tuiono: Does he support stronger action on synthetic nitrogen fertiliser, which has increased by over 600 percent since 1990, including a lower per hectare cap to reduce nitrous oxide emissions and prevent overstocking caused by artificial inputs that push farming beyond environmental limits?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Nitrogen is a critical part of plant growth and has played a big part in the success of the New Zealand agricultural sector. Previously, we’ve used legumes and clovers to fixate the nitrogen from the atmosphere into the ground. I believe that’s a good, sustainable way forward. We have used increasing levels of synthetic nitrogen. We have now put a cap on that and I think farmers are winding back their systems to be more sustainable into the future.

Teanau Tuiono: What message, if any, did he give to the dairy sector about their role in reducing emissions at the New Zealand Dairy Industry Awards in Christchurch earlier this week, and did this include a commitment to helping farms diversify sustainably?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: We’ve already rolled out, from Government funding, to support some research—a greater knowledge of regenerative farming systems. I pointed out to the reality that Nestlé want to source 50 percent of all their products from regenerative farming systems. I’m sure New Zealand will play a part in contributing to that supply chain in the future. Yes, they have the messages from the market, but they have systems that can’t be shifted overnight. I’m sure and am confident that they will move to a better space to address the increasing demands of the consumers offshore.

Kieran McAnulty: Does the Minister stand by his statement that the Government’s plan has strong support from the primary sector, “including Fonterra, ANZSCO, Ravensdown, Silverfern Farms, Ngāi Tahu Holdings, and the Livestock Improvement Corporation. [That] this is a true partnership between Government, industry, and our rural communities”—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! Order! Rereading speeches purporting to be questions is out of order.

Kieran McAnulty: I can do it from memory, if you like.

SPEAKER: The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Kieran McAnulty: I withdraw and apologise. Supplementary?

SPEAKER: No.

Kieran McAnulty: Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: No. No. The supplementary’s been ruled out.

Kieran McAnulty: Oh.

SPEAKER: The member’s just about ruled out too.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with Westpac economist Michael Gordon’s view that “Many households are already feeling the pinch on their finances, and that pressure will become more intense over the next few years”; if so, will he commit to tax relief in tomorrow’s Budget?

As I’ve said a number of times in this House, the Government is very aware of the impact that the global energy crisis, supply disruptions, and the ongoing pandemic are having on households, particularly on those that are most vulnerable to increases in food and petrol prices. It’s the reason why we’ve acted to support low and middle income New Zealanders through cuts to fuel prices, halving the cost of public transport, increases to income support including family tax credit changes, childcare assistance, student allowances, and main benefits, as well as lifting the minimum wage. In answer to the second part of the question, there is only one more sleep until the Budget—

Chris Bishop: Aww!

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —well, perhaps two if we count Mr Bishop’s nap!—and I won’t be revealing any details of it today. What I can say, though, is that I agree with what the IMF indicated, that it’s not the time for major tax changes following a one-in-100-year economic shock. What it is the time for is a balanced approach that makes sure that our spending is carefully prioritised, with a focus on big, long-term issues such as heath and climate change.

Nicola Willis: Does he agree with BNZ economist Stephen Toplis, who said, “Our central forecast, currently, is that New Zealand’s growth stalls completely in 2023. The danger is that the wheels well and truly fall off”, and should New Zealanders be braced for more tough times ahead under Labour?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I am certainly not going to go into the detail of the economic forecasts that are in tomorrow’s Budget, but what I would refer the member to is the answer I gave to question No. 1 today, where the International Monetary Fund—having done a thorough review independently of the New Zealand economy—said that New Zealand was in a strong position as a result of the successful management of the pandemic, with strong health and economic policies supporting a quick recovery from lockdowns, that our debt sustainability remains robust, and that there is substantial headroom to respond to any other challenges.

Nicola Willis: Does he agree with economist Cameron Bagrie, who wrote: “You cannot spend and print money as a way to economic prosperity and wealth creation; you need to have some substance”, and does the Minister have any regrets about choosing this moment in the economic cycle to launch a record spend-up?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On this side of the House, I will never have a regret about properly funding our health system so that New Zealanders have the health services they need and deserve, wherever they live; I will never regret making sure that we reduce decades of inequities for Māori and Pacific health outcomes; and I will never regret coming to this House to make sure that the National Party never get their hands on the health system again.

Nicola Willis: Does he agree with Professor Francis Collins, who says of New Zealand’s economic prospects: “even if people have reasonable jobs, they are going to struggle, and they’re going to struggle to see decent economic opportunities for their family”, and does the Minister understand that New Zealanders will judge his Budget not by what it announces, but by what is actually delivered?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What has been delivered is annual average growth over 5 percent. Unemployment at 3.2 percent—a record low. Wages growing at over 4 percent. On this side of the House, we will continue to strike a careful balance: keeping a lid on debt, making sure we invest in the here and now, and addressing long-term issues like health and climate change.

Nicola Willis: Well, does he agree with Professor Collins, who said, “We’re likely to see higher emigration in the next few years, and we’re likely to do so because of this confluence of high house prices, high interest rates, higher cost of living”, and can the Minister confirm that one of the major deliverables of tomorrow’s Budget will be an acceleration in the New Zealand brain drain?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I can confirm is that tomorrow’s Budget will continue the record of this Government of getting a careful balance in investing in the things that make sure New Zealanders have decent hospitals; that their kids go to decent schools; that we actually build State houses, not sell them; and that we make sure that we support businesses, just like we did through COVID, to seize the opportunities of the future. I’m looking forward to the Budget tomorrow.

Hon Stuart Nash: Does the Minister agree with American investor Warren Buffett, who noted at Berkshire Hathaway’s AGM this year that the role of Government in the pandemic was to protect jobs and the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I wouldn’t always agree with Mr Buffett, but on this particular matter I certainly do and I am very proud of the fact that this Government stood alongside New Zealand businesses, households, and workers—supported them through COVID-19. That is the same thing we will do now to make sure that we meet the challenges and take the opportunities of the future.

Question No. 6—Forestry

6. to the Minister of Forestry: How is the Government using investment in forestry to help New Zealand meet its obligations to lower emissions and mitigate the impact of climate change?

The emissions reduction plan sets out actions we can take now in the forestry sector to support the transition to a high-value, low-emissions economy and enhance biodiversity in the natural environment. A total of $710 million has been committed to the wider primary sector, from the Climate Emergency Response Fund to achieve these plans. Just over half of this—almost $330 million—supports forestry initiatives. In particular, we will establish new native forests at scale; maximise carbon storage by developing more reliable information about sequestration rates of different species, especially native trees; and replace coal and other fossil fuels with an increased supply of woody biomass, including biofuels. These actions are achievable and show that every sector can play its part to reduce emissions and protect our economic security.

Rachel Brooking: What are the challenges for native afforestation, as opposed to exotic forestry, and how has the Government responded?

Hon STUART NASH: I acknowledge that establishing new native forest comes with multiple challenges. It currently costs more to grow and produce and purchase native trees and—everything being equal because of, for example, introduced pests—they have relatively low survival rates compared with some exotics. Commercial returns for native forests in the emissions trading scheme are currently lower due to incomplete look-up tables. The Government is exploring options to address these challenges along the full supply chain, to improve incentives for landowners and others to plant more native trees. We are investing $145 million from Budget 2022 in the forestry response in the emissions reduction plan to reduce the costs of native tree seedlings and increase the number available for planting in future years.

Rachel Brooking: How does the emissions reduction plan build on previous initiatives like the one billion tree programme?

Hon STUART NASH: We have spent the last four and a half years working to bend the curve on the trajectory of our carbon emissions, with programmes like the billion trees plan. Now is the time for forestry to play an even more prominent role in our future. Forestry has a strong economic and social history in New Zealand. It is one of our largest export earners, a significant employer of over 40,000 people in forestry and wood processing, and is central to our high-wage, high-skilled, and low-emissions economic transformation strategy. We set ourselves a goal of planting 1 billion trees by 2028. The annual planting season is just about to start, with an estimated 120 million seedlings expected to go in the ground during 2022. As at December 2021, an estimated 350 million trees have been planted, thanks to Government partnership and support through the billion trees programme. Forestry is a long-term game and, while the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the second-best time is now.

Question No. 7—Prime Minister

7. to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and policies?

Yes. In particular, I stand by our announcement of a $100 million investment to support specialist and acute mental health needs. As you’ve heard from the Minister of Health today, this will fund community-based crisis services delivering intensive support, specialist child and adolescent mental health and addiction services, and more funding to develop our specialist workforce.

David Seymour: Does she agree with the statement by the Minister for COVID-19 Response that pre-departure testing for people entering New Zealand—“its days are numbered”, and, if yes, can she tell the House on what day people will be able to enter New Zealand without a pre-departure test; in other words, how many days do we have to count?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. I do support the statement made by the Minister for COVID-19 Response. In fact, the member may recall that last Wednesday, when announcing the final phase of our reopening strategy, we talked about the return of those from non - visa waiver countries in July and at that point stipulated that we did not expect—in fact, were committed to pre-departure testing being removed at that time in July. Whilst I can’t give the member a specific date, work has been done as we speak to ensure that we have in place all of the preparations for the removal of pre-departure testing.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister also stand by the Minister for COVID-19’s statement at the select committee this morning to the effect that pre-departure testing is making little difference to New Zealand’s COVID response, and, if she does stand by that statement, why is she going to make people go through it for another two and a half months?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The first point that I would make is that New Zealand is not alone in the fact that there are still entry requirements from around the world. The world has not gone back to normal. Even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have requirements for entry into the United States. Japan hasn’t allowed tourists to return. There are a number of countries that still have entry requirements, some of which may be considered more stringent than New Zealand. So what the Minister would have been referring to is that probably the more effective and important ongoing policy we have is the screening regime we have once people arrive. But, at the same time, we do need to make sure we have in place infrastructure should we at any time in the future need to return to a period of using pre-departure testing.

David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister reassure middle New Zealand that the Budget will help them with their household budget, even if they don’t receive a benefit or tax credit but instead rely on something called “working” to earn more and pay their bills?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would refer the member to the fact that 60 percent of families in New Zealand do receive, and have done for a number of years, the tax credit known as the family tax credit—60 percent of families receive that tax credit. And as a Government we have been focused on using tools like that to ensure that we’re supporting New Zealanders from low and middle income families. And I would point the member to the fact that families, even on a combined income of, say, over $100,000 in certain circumstances, will be in receipt of the family tax credit. It reaches a number of households and has been an incredibly useful tool for us as we’ve sought to increase the disposable income of low and middle income New Zealanders.

David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister reassure young New Zealanders that this Budget will do something different from prior ones to reduce the income gap with Australia that has grown by $6,600 per year since she’s been Prime Minister, or will this become known in history as the “Brain Drain Budget”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would first of all point to our record. Since we have been in office, wage growth has outstripped the increases in inflation since the time that we took office, with the exception of 2022 when we were seeing the entire world, including Australia, go through an inflation spike during this period. So I would reflect on our record, and I would even reflect on the fact that even in this period of time, we’re seeing wage increases above 4 percent. The second point I would make is that one of the very tools that is being pointed to when you analyse the difference in New Zealand’s wage growth over a number of years, relative to Australia, is sector-based bargaining. It is one of the issues that many analysts point to as to a difference to New Zealand’s wage rates and Australia, and I note the member is opposed to it.

Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her Government’s policy the winter energy payment that assists over 1 million New Zealanders to heat their homes over the winter months?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely, and that payment was, obviously, introduced by a Labour Government and kicked in from 1 May, supporting low-income families but also superannuitants. Just this morning, I received correspondence from someone who pointed out that it enabled their family to use their heat pump more during the winter, particularly given they have a family member who suffers from frequent illness. We know it makes a difference. It’s a shame the member opposite is so diminishing of the impact that it has on people’s lives.

David Seymour: Will a worker on $70,000—for example, a nurse in the middle of the income band—be $2,300 better off, under her Government’s Budget, as they would under ACT’s alternative budget for real change?

SPEAKER: The Prime Minister can answer the first part of the question; she has no responsibility for the second.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously I’m not going to speak to the Budget, which the member only has to wait one more sleep in order to see the results of. But what I will point to is our record, where the member who asked the question believes in cutting the number of nurses that we have in the first place because he believes there’s been too much growth in front-line public servants. Well, I would question whether or not he believes in dealing with pay parity or pay equity issues. But, in this Government, we have a proud record of progressively improving the incomes of, for instance, the likes of our nurses, which, on average, have seen a 20 percent increase for some of our nursing workforce. And if you can peer back an experienced nurse at a base level, for instance, who had received in 2017 an income of $66,000, they’re now $16,000 better-off as a result of this Government.

SPEAKER: I think the member is aware that tomorrow is Budget day; therefore, the ACT Party gets fewer questions than they do in a normal week. He’s used all his questions.

David Seymour: A point of order, Mr Speaker. So much steam! I seek leave to ask an additional supplementary question of the Prime Minister.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? Yes, there is.

Question No. 8—Health

8. to the Minister of Health: Why did he announce yesterday an expansion of Mana Ake with “$90 million set aside to start services in Northland, Counties Manukau, Bay of Plenty, Lakes and West Coast regions”, when he had already announced in April 2021, “The expansion of Mana Ake will start in five new DHB areas: Northland, Counties Manukau, Bay of Plenty, Lakes and West Coast”, and is he aware of any other recent Government mental health announcements that have already been announced?

The member has got it wrong—again. In April 2021, I announced $12 million for DHBs and local communities to co-design Mana Ake services for their local areas. Mana Ake, introduced to Canterbury and Kaikōura by this Government, has been successful, but rolling out this successful programme further is not a matter of just imposing the same approach to different communities. With the co-design process having now been largely completed, we now know what is needed to practically roll out relevant services. Yesterday, I was proud to announce, along with my colleague Dr Tracey McLellan, $90 million that will allow these relevant and tailored services to begin in the Northland, Counties Manukau, Bay of Plenty, Lakes, and West Coast regions. In response to the second part of the member’s question, that has not happened. One difference is very clear between this Government and the last Government: we don’t turn our back on mental health services.

Matt Doocey: Why was $75 million announced to help deal with mental health and wellbeing issues in schools in November 2021, when the same $75 million for this initiative had already been announced in July 2020?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not quite sure what the member is referring to, but we have a range of programmes in schools, including school-based health services that deal with a range of health issues for children in schools deciles 1 to 5. This is a Government that takes seriously the need to provide a full range of health services, including mental health services—including mental health services for young people—in a way that the previous Government simply turned its back on.

Matt Doocey: In light of the Minister’s answer to my primary question, where he said last year he announced $12 million to co-design Mana Ake, why in his PR put out on 15 April 2021, where he talks about the Government expanding Mana Ake and more children accessing it, is there no reference to the $12 million or co-design?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: It was very clear when the announcement of $12 million was made—$12 million was not going to provide the range of Mana Ake services to five regions in the same way that was comparable to what was available then in Canterbury and Kaikōura. Sometimes it does require members in this House to take their brain cells and put two and two together. I’m sorry that that member fails to do that but that actually is what was required, and yesterday I was very pleased to announce that we now have the funding to roll out Mana Ake services to provide support to children in primary and intermediate schools in the regions that were announced. That will make a huge difference to those regions.

SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask the Minister just to show a little bit more restraint in the tone of his answers. I think he can probably tell from the stimulation it provided, at least to the vocal cords of some of his colleagues, that it incited disorder.

Matt Doocey: Why, when questioned this morning on Today FM about his announcement over a year ago to expand Mana Ake services, did he say, “We didn’t announce the expansion; we announced the money.”, when his PR from a year ago is titled “Government expands Mana Ake”?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The announcement yesterday was $90 million of funding to provide the services, the Mana Ake services, in five more regions so that we provide the help and support to young New Zealanders—children at primary and intermediate schools, in five more regions—who need that help, who are dealing with issues of grief, of parental separation, of loss, and who have not had that help ever before, including in the years immediately after the Christchurch earthquakes in the Canterbury region, and who are desperately needing that help. We are providing that help. This Government provides that help, because one thing is very clear: this Government does not turn its back on the need to improve our mental health services, unlike the previous Government.

Matt Doocey: Could the Minister tell the House for the $12 million spent and the 13 months that it took to co-design, what is one difference that was changed from the established service that has been running for five years in Canterbury?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Quite a significant difference, and the reality is you do not introduce a service that is requiring the input of local service providers, local NGOs, local communities, some where their school populations are predominantly Māori or Pacific or different population groupings where there are different needs. We don’t view the world on this side of the House as all white, like the members opposite clearly do. We are a diverse country with diverse communities in all the different regions of New Zealand, and when we provide very personalised services to people, they need to be relevant to those communities and their whānau.

SPEAKER: I’m just waiting to see if the member’s finished. The member will put his mask on, then.

Question No. 9—Transport

9. to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has the Government made about supporting the public transport sector?

Through the emissions reduction plan (ERP), public transport is identified as playing a key role in supporting the transition to net zero. As we look to the future, it is more important than ever to have effective, reliable, and accessible public transport services in place. That’s why we’re investing $40 million over four years to help local government accelerate the decarbonisation of around about 2,500 public transport buses, helping providers to meet the upfront costs of zero-emission buses and associated infrastructure. We’re also investing $47 million to ensure the reliability of public transport services around the country by covering a portion of revenue shortfall due to reduced patronage from COVID-19. These initiatives build on the Government’s record investment into transport services and infrastructure over the past four years and will allow more people to move around our towns and regions in a way that’s cost-effective and reduces emissions.

Vanushi Walters: What announcements has he made about workforce support in the public transport sector?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: To rapidly scale up bus networks and services across Aotearoa and meet the requirements of the ERP, the public transport sector will need to recruit and retain bus drivers to address existing bus driver shortages caused in part by the race to the bottom approach to wages under the current public transport operating model that we inherited. That’s why we’re investing $60 million to help providers lift bus driver wages, invest in better rest facilities for drivers, and make timetable changes to allow for more manageable shifts across peak and off-peak times. By making bus driving a more viable and attractive career choice, we’re enabling the public transport sector to scale up to meet our emissions reductions goals while also delivering more reliable public transport services for Kiwis and doing the right thing by our bus drivers, who have done such a great job for our country over the past two years.

Vanushi Walters: What other work has the Government undertaken to support the public transport sector?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: We’ve made record investments into public transport right around New Zealand, from major projects like Auckland light rail and Let’s Get Wellington Moving and the Eastern Busway to locally focused initiatives like supporting on-demand bus services in Timaru. We’ve also halved public transport fares for three months and upgraded public transport infrastructure around the country, and we’re supporting other active modes of transport like walking and cycling. On this side of the House, we know that, in 2022, Kiwis want real transport choices around the country. We’re making up for years of inaction with our investment in public transport right around New Zealand.

Question No. 10—Transport

10. to the Minister of Transport: Does he still believe that early construction on Auckland light rail will start in 2023?

Yes, and I’m pleased to note that last week marked a significant step in the Auckland light rail project with the release of a tender for the project inviting engineers, urban planners, designers, and industry teams to prepare to bid for the detailed planning and design work. Critically, the tender process incorporates the additional Waitematā Harbour crossing programme to help industry plan better for the future. I note the feedback from Claire Edmondson of Infrastructure New Zealand, who said, “To have this going out to tender as two projects like this in one is great for New Zealand.” This is a Government committed to investing in mass rapid transit to get our cities moving.

Simeon Brown: Given his answer that early works will begin next year, how many metres of Auckland light rail will the Government construct before the 2023 election?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Delivering a proper, functioning, linked-up mass rapid transit network in our largest city is one of our most important transport priorities. For 50 years, a proper mass rapid transit system for Auckland has been kicked down the road. This is a significant and complex project. We are getting on with the job of delivering it, that’s what Aucklanders expect us to do. We can engage in political barbs across the House about this, but what 1.7 million Aucklanders expect us to do is to deliver a linked-up network. That’s why we’re building the Eastern Busway, that’s why we’re building the Northwestern Bus interim improvements, that’s why we’ve extended the Northern Busway, and that’s why we’re now investing in mass rapid transit to the Shore and across the Auckland isthmus.

Shanan Halbert: Why is it important that the planning for Auckland light rail and the additional Waitematā Harbour crossing is integrated?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Because it is the Government’s priority to finally develop a proper linked-up rapid transit network for Auckland that futureproofs our largest city for hundreds of thousands of new people who will live in it in the coming decades. That is what successive local and central government administrations have failed to do over the last 50 years, and that’s why we’re getting on with the job. I note that planning for that additional Waitematā Harbour crossing has now been brought forward from the 2040s, which is where it was in the Auckland Transport Alignment Project that we inherited from the previous Government. We’ll be consulting on the options later this year.

Simeon Brown: Can he confirm that the Government’s position in 2017 was to construct light rail to Mount Roskill by 2021, and is it the Government’s current position that the Government would only deliver a final business case by 2024?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As I said in one of my previous answers, members on either side of this House can continue to try and engage in political attacks and lob either way across the Chamber, but what the people of Auckland expect us to do is to get on with the job. It’s very well known that, in the previous term of Government, there was not agreement across the parties of Government to progress that project. As such, we have commenced it from the beginning of this term. In the space of 18 months, we’ve engaged with Aucklanders, we’ve developed an indicative business case, we’ve made a political decision around the route and the mode for the project, we’ve moved forward now to tendering for detailed design, and Auckland Airport has now announced a $300 million transport hub with provision for mass rapid transit. In that period of time, under the term of this Government, we’re making excellent progress.

Simeon Brown: So is the Minister saying the only progress that will be delivered by the 2023 election will be zero metres of light rail and part of a business case?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The member’s persistent line of questioning betrays why it was that on that side of the House they never delivered a single mass rapid transit project in any of our major cities in any of their time in Government. These significant urban renewal projects do take time to deliver here in New Zealand, and in any city around the world. It is absolutely common sense that before significant construction on a multibillion-dollar project like this can begin, that there will need to be significant work put into the design, the planning, the consultation, and the consenting for any project. The people of Auckland understand that. That’s why they support us taking forward this project, and that’s what we’re going to get on with.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Is it unusual for a Government’s commitment to a transport project and the commencement of the construction of that transport project to be significantly far apart?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As the Minister of Transport, I have responsibility for overseeing a wide range of transport projects. I am aware of a number of projects which have taken longer than anticipated to deliver, including Transmission Gully—which we are very pleased to open early this term after many, many delays, which have been well documented. We’re also, as time moves on, actually opening up some of the roads of national significance, only three of which were delivered on that previous Government’s watch.

Simeon Brown: Is the reason why the Minister stood next to a big red zero—which was purchased by the New Zealand Transport Agency, at a cost of $5,000 to the taxpayer—because he wanted to tell New Zealanders how many metres of light rail this Government’s actually delivered?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The answer to that question is no. The reason that I support the Road to Zero campaign that Waka Kotahi is moving forward with is because we have a road toll in deaths and serious injuries on the New Zealand transport system that is higher than virtually any country around the world. The number of deaths on New Zealand roads in the last five years of that previous Government’s term increased by 50 percent. This Government is not prepared to put up with that, and that’s why we’re supporting a campaign right across the land transport system to save Kiwis’ lives. The member opposite might like to use that as a political barb or he might like to tweet about it and get some of his little fans excited, but we’re going to get on with the job of saving lives and building a transport system that is safe and accessible for all New Zealanders. [Applause]

SPEAKER: Order! Question No. 11, Arena Williams. [Member interjects] Order! Mr Faafoi will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Kris Faafoi: I withdraw, and I apologise.

Question No. 11—Youth

11. to the Minister for Youth: What recent announcements has she made about supporting youth in New Zealand?

On Friday, I announced $15 million over four years as part of Budget 2022 to support young people through increased access to youth development services as part of this Government’s commitment to make New Zealand the best place in the world to be a young person. This investment is expected to increase our reach up to an additional 7,160 young people annually and increase stability and certainty for youth development providers.

Arena Williams: Why is this significant?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: This funding represents a 40 percent boost to support services funded by the Ministry of Youth Development (MYD), and it is the most significant funding increase MYD-funded services have seen in 20 years, outside of COVID-19 response - specific funding. Youth development services play an important role in terms of supporting young people to develop work-ready skills and resilience, strengthen their connections with their communities, and they help many to find a sense of purpose.

Arena Williams: What feedback has she received from young people about youth development services?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I’ve met many young people from some very difficult family situations who’ve said that they found their first role model in their youth worker. Many have told me that they’ve finally found a family. Many have talked about developing a sense of self-confidence and self-esteem and also strengthened connections with their marae or communities. Many have built support networks that have supported them through some really challenging times. I’m proud to be part of a Government that is investing in our young people and their future.

Question No. 12—Police

12. to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement, “in terms of what I am delivering as Police Minister … our people feel safer”; if so, why?

Yes, because this Government has a strong track record of backing our police, as I outlined for the member yesterday. In addition to that, since we came to Government, we have also increased the police budget by more than 35 percent, after it had been, essentially, frozen for nine years; we’ve graduated 3,145 recruits from the Royal New Zealand Police College after police numbers had fallen over a number of years; and we’ve set aside funding in Budget 2022 to ensure that there is one police officer for every 480 New Zealanders, to ensure police numbers never fall again.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why did she tell the House on 3 May, in response to questions on ram raids, “I am confident the police are taking action by launching the new retail crime unit”, when the police stated yesterday that the new retail crime unit does not specifically investigate ram raids?

SPEAKER: No. Order! Order! Can the member do something which relates either to the question or the answer. One of the disadvantages of the question methods used by the leaders of the two parties that ask these questions is it gives them a broad opportunity to ask supplementaries, but I think it’s important that the member ties his supplementary into the original question. I’ll let the member have another go at it.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Well, Mr Speaker, just seeking some guidance: you’re right, the primary question is broad, and it relates to public safety.

SPEAKER: No, no; it’s actually relatively narrow. It’s not a general policing question. Have another go. It’s not hard for the member to relate it.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why did the Minister tell the House on 3 May that she delivered a response to ram raids, with the formation of the new retail crime unit, when the police stated yesterday that the new retail crime unit does not specifically investigate ram raids?

SPEAKER: No. Well, the member just asked the same question again. The question is about people feeling safer or the “whys”, which the member could’ve very easily picked something up out of what the Minister said. So the member’s used one supplementary; he can another go if he wants to—but he’s used one already.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Sorry, Mr Speaker. I do want to seek some guidance on this. The primary question—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! It’s the right of members to have a point of order; generally, it’s not the right to have a tutorial. But when people are asking me a question, I don’t expect raucous backbenchers to interrupt.

Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, no. I’ve dealt with that; we’ve got one point of order on the floor now from Mr Mitchell. I’ll deal with that one first.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Well, I’ll concede to—

SPEAKER: Well, if the member’s doing that, he’s going to lose his opportunity to ask his one.

Hon Mark Mitchell: OK; I’ll ask my one first, then. Mr Speaker, it’s very clear in my primary question to the Minister that I’m talking about delivery as police Minister. My supplementary question, quite simply, talks about delivery. It’s very specific. It talks about how she made a statement in this House on 3 May, responding to questions around ram raids—

SPEAKER: OK. Right. The member will resume his seat. It’s very clear from the question that the member has qualified it by the second part of the quote. A further point of order, Chris Bishop.

Chris Bishop: Well, Mr Speaker, perhaps I’ll try and be helpful. We had exactly the same primary question yesterday and we had a whole series of exchanges around ram raids, and it’s exactly the same primary today, with exactly the same line of questioning. So I think—

SPEAKER: Yes. And the member, if he looks really carefully, he can have a look at the answer. The supplementary questions can relate to the primary question or to the answer. Supplementary question, Mark Mitchell.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Can I start again, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: You can, but you’re on your second one.

Hon Mark Mitchell: What police unit is specifically responsible for ram raids?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The whole of police—

SPEAKER: I’m going to let it go because I’m so frustrated.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I’m quite prepared to address the issue that Mr Mitchell raised earlier. The police are responsive to all the demands that come their way, regardless of whether they’re ram raids or burglaries or other crime. So it is an all-of-police response. In relation to the question that he asked about the delivery, in terms of the work that the police have currently under way, I want to point to two things. The first thing I want to point to is Operation Pryor, which has been operating since November in the Waikato and has made over 160 arrests around the issue of ram raids. I also want to point to the development and the launch of the national retail crime unit, which was also in November, which is assisting police in their development of a programme to speak to a very targeted issue, which is ram raids and how police can support small business to feel secure in their operation of their business.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why did—[Interruption] Sorry.

SPEAKER: The member’s only had one supplementary so far—one that counts.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why did the Minister, on 3 May, say that the newly formed retail crime unit was responsible for ram raids?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The retail crime unit is responsible to support the police in the development, working alongside Retail New Zealand, to ensure that small businesses, who have found it very difficult over the last couple of years, are able to operate safely.

Golriz Ghahraman: On delivering for public safety, is the Minister confident that the training of the armed offenders squad (AOS) is adequate, and, if so, what is her response to the High Court finding, just yesterday, that the AOS officer who shot Iriheke Pere whilst handcuffed had received—this is a quote—no “one on one training … had not been inducted … had not had any mentoring … [and] There was no training plan in place for him”?

SPEAKER: Yeah, no. The police Minister is not responsible for that judgment and, again, it’s one which was not properly tied in. Although there was a more nimble attempt to tie it into the primary question, it was not a successful one.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: No. No.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: —I am prepared to address the question—

SPEAKER: Well, the Minister might be prepared to address, it but I’ve already ruled it out.

Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No. Well, I hope it doesn’t relate to what I’ve just ruled.

Chris Bishop: Well, I was just going to encourage the Government to seek leave for the Minister to answer the question.

SPEAKER: Well, the member knows that that’s disorderly. [Interruption] No, the member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Chris Bishop: I withdraw and apologise.

That concludes oral questions.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: No. The member’s had his supplementaries. I mean if the member can’t count to three, that’s not brilliant.