Oral Questions

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

The latest Xero Small Business Index has shown that businesses have remained resilient despite Omicron affecting staffing. Sales grew 3.7 percent year on year while jobs grew 2.7 percent. Wage growth was above 4 percent in all regions. Overall, the index jumped 20 points, to 134, the highest level since the series began in 2017. This was largely driven by a significant fall in the time small businesses waited to be paid, to 21.3 days, which is the lowest result since the series started.

Barbara Edmonds: What announcements has he seen on alleviating skills shortages for the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Today, the Prime Minister announced changes to immigration settings to accelerate growth and help address long-term challenges. The rebalance will simplify our immigration systems, reduce the number of categories, make it more accessible online, and streamline application processes for businesses. The cornerstone of the rebalance is the new green list, which will provide a streamlined and prioritised pathway to residence, incentivising high-skilled healthcare, engineers, trade, and ICT workers to relocate to New Zealand long term. The list features 85 hard-to-fill roles including construction, engineering, trades, health workers, and tech. Through the accredited employer work visa, employers won’t need to provide as much information and can use their own recruitment processes to prove that no New Zealanders are available for work, and Immigration New Zealand will endeavour to have these visas processed within 40 days. This overall reset will help businesses access the skills they need while ensuring wages and working conditions are improved for everyone.

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Statistics New Zealand yesterday reported that retail spending using debit and credit cards rose a higher than expected 7 percent in April compared with the previous month. Core retail sales saw a strong increase of 7.4 percent in April, with gains in spending, consumables, durables, hospitality, and apparel. Westpac’s economists said they expected further increases in spending over the next few months given the continued easing in health restrictions, including the opening of the international border, helping to support a recovery in the hospitality sector. However, we know that New Zealanders are doing it tough as global factors push up the cost of living, and we’re continuing to support low and middle income earners through reductions in their fuel bills and income increases.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Christopher Luxon: Why have the number of back office staff at the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) more than doubled from just 345 in 2017 to over 800 last year; and does she believe that taxpayers have got good value for money from a doubling of back office staff?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, New Zealanders know that to deliver good quality, strong public services requires a range of different staff. Some of them work in front-facing roles, some of them work in back office roles—all of them are important to making sure New Zealanders get the services they deserve.

Christopher Luxon: Why has total spending on consultants by NZTA also more than doubled over the same period, from just $31 million in 2017 to over $75 million last year; and does she believe taxpayers have got a good return from spending twice as much on consultants?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: When it comes to the work of Waka Kotahi NZTA, it is important that they are able to draw on the best expertise around the country, and indeed around the world, to be able to put in place the transport policies of the Government.

Christopher Luxon: Why has the number of communications staff at NZTA earning more than $100,000 increased from just 6.6 FTEs in 2017 to almost 65 last year; and does she believe taxpayers are getting good value for money from a 10-fold increase in highlypaid comms staff?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, all of the staff who work at Waka Kotahi NZTA play an important role in making sure that we achieve the transport outcomes that are here for New Zealand. I don’t have a specific answer to that question; the member might choose to put it down in writing. What I do know is it took a lot of effort to communicate just how much National stuffed up the public-private partnership on Transmission Gully.

Hon Michael Wood: Does the Prime Minister stand by the Government’s investment in back office regulatory staff at Waka Kotahi, in response to the significant regulatory failure that was established in 2018, 2019 after years of under-investment?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, that was one of the issues that Waka Kotahi NZTA had to deal with—was the fact that through the warrant of fitness process there were significant shortcomings, partly, I’m sure, as a result of under-investment under the previous National Government.

Christopher Luxon: What benefits, if any, have taxpayers received from the $10,000 the Government spent on two giant red zeros for the transport Minister to stand next to in photo ops?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the transport Minister has already made clear his views to Waka Kotahi around that matter, and, as the member will be well aware, from time to time agencies do do things that don’t always meet the expectations of Ministers.

Christopher Luxon: What have taxpayers got from the $50 million her Government spent on the Auckland bike bridge, or the $600,000 it is spending to rent an empty—empty—waterfront office to manage the cancelled bike bridge project?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Government continues to make sure that we’re investigating mode-shift options, that we’re investigating ways in which people can actually move around Auckland—that we’ll actually invest in transport. On this side of the House, we remain proud of our record in making sure that New Zealanders have transport options.

Christopher Luxon: Doesn’t this show that her Government has created a culture of wasteful spending in the public sector, and taxpayers deserve a Government focused on delivering outcomes, not spin?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, what it shows is the Government continues to invest in making sure that public services are what New Zealanders deserve and that we keep New Zealanders safe. For instance, that’s why we’ve invested in 940 more corrections officers, 735 Department of Work and Income case officers, 510 social workers, 520 education advisers for teachers in schools, 350 scientists working in biosecurity, customs office, special education teachers, and more. We know that it takes a lot of work to provide the public services we need, especially after significant under-investment in those areas.

Christopher Luxon: Why does she think it’s OK for Government agencies to waste taxpayer money when, up and down the country, every day Kiwis are having to spend—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! I’m going to invite the member to start his question again.

Christopher Luxon: Why does she think it’s OK for Government agencies to waste taxpayer money?

SPEAKER: Right. The member—if he wants to use another supplementary he can. He’s had two shots and missed.

Christopher Luxon: Why does she think it’s OK for Government agencies to spend taxpayer money when, up and down the country, every day Kiwis are having to make tough decisions about their own household spending?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is in fact the job of Government agencies to spend taxpayer money—that’s what it’s about. On this side of the House, we work very hard every day to make sure that New Zealanders are getting value for money. It’s interesting that the member hasn’t focused on the investment that the Government made in delivering things like the wage subsidy scheme, and making sure that New Zealanders are staying safe through more corrections officers, or indeed the funding of 1,800 more police. On this side of the House, we take seriously our responsibility to make sure New Zealanders have the public services they deserve, unlike the National Party who spent years in Government cutting those public services.

Question No. 3—Disability Issues

3. to the Minister for Disability Issues: What recent announcements has she made on New Zealand Sign Language?

On Monday, I launched New Zealand Sign Language Week. As part of this, I was pleased to highlight that the new Ministry for Disabled People will be New Zealand’s first ministry with a New Zealand Sign Language name. This year’s theme, “New Zealand Sign Language is Essential”, recognises the prominence and importance of our second official language and draws a spotlight on essential workers who are deaf. I’m proud of the status we have given to New Zealand Sign Language both in Aotearoa New Zealand and on an international stage. We are recognised as a world leader for our commitment to maintaining and furthering the use of sign language.

Terisa Ngobi: Why is New Zealand Sign Language Week important?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: New Zealand Sign Language is an official language but it is endangered. The maintenance and promotion of New Zealand Sign Language is vital to deaf New Zealanders’ community participation, inclusion, and access to services, wellbeing, and Deaf culture. It is about deaf New Zealanders including our tangata turi community having a good life in Aotearoa like all other New Zealanders. While this week is New Zealand Sign Language Week, every week we must take steps towards improving accessibility, raising awareness, and building inclusivity for the deaf community.

Terisa Ngobi: What progress has been made to support New Zealand Sign Language?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This year marks 16 years since New Zealand Sign Language became the second official language of New Zealand, championed by the former Minister for Disability Issues the Hon Ruth Dyson. I’m pleased to continue the work of the former Minister and I’m pleased at the progress we’re making. We’ve increased funding to the New Zealand Sign Language Board. For the first time a practical guide has been developed to support Government agencies to implement the principles of the New Zealand Sign Language Act 2006. During COVID-19, New Zealand Sign Language interpreters were provided for Government briefings. An all-of-Government accessible communications group was established to make COVID-19 information available in New Zealand Sign Language as well as other alternative formats. And we’ve invested in inclusive and accessible spaces for the deaf community through our Creatives in Schools programme, for example.

Question No. 4—Social Development and Employment

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House to transfer my question back to the Prime Minister, who made the statement in question and is the only one who has responsibility—

SPEAKER: Order! That’s not a matter for which leave can be sought. That’s been ruled on many times, and can I make a suggestion: if the member’s considering doing something like that again in the future, she consults so she doesn’t make this mistake, which has been regarded as being disorderly by Speakers in the past.

4. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by the Prime Minister’s statement, “Absolutely—I wouldn’t dispute that for a moment” in response to Fairer Future, who said that “people on a benefit should be able to participate fully in society”, and what specific new initiatives, if any, have been agreed to reduce poverty amongst beneficiary w’ānau?

Yes, I do, and that’s why we’ve increased support for low-income New Zealanders. Our winter energy payment, which kicked in on 1 May, helps over a million New Zealanders every year. Our main benefit increases have been the biggest in a generation, and our 1 April changes further improve support for families through minimum-wage increases, our family tax credit increases, and increasing access to childcare assistance. Under this Government, 66,500 children have been lifted out of poverty. We also know participation is more than just income. We have halved public transport costs, agreed to a new Ministry for Disabled People, and increased investment in Mana in Mahi and Māori trades training. As I’ve always said, there is still more to do.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is she concerned with reports that beneficiaries, including single mothers, are paying up to a quarter of their income to service Government debt that was incurred to cover basic needs, like food and bills, and, if not, why not?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This was something that was raised through the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s report and is an issue that we take seriously. The debt that beneficiaries have with regards to Government agencies usually lies with not only the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) but, often, also with the Ministry of Justice and, sometimes, with Inland Revenue as well. We currently have a work programme under way with respect to debt to Government and how we can manage that better across the system to ensure that Government debt is not further driving New Zealanders into hardship.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is your response to the proposal from the Fairer Future coalition to wipe out all debt owed to MSD, given that, during COVID, beneficiaries were forced $400 million further in debt to the Government itself and that, realistically, the debt is uncollectable?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The legislation is really clear with regards to client debt, in that the ministry or a Government can’t just wipe someone’s debt unless the debt was incurred because of a mistake made by the Government agency and through no fault of the client. And so we have no intention to, at this stage, change the legislation, and therefore, it’s not an option that’s currently on the table.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will she prioritise more support for beneficiaries, including through increasing their income, removing sanctions, and individualising benefits, in light of the reality described by Assistant Māori Commissioner for Children, Glenys Philip-Barbara, that “While some families are feeling the pinch, others are barely clinging on,”?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We have increased benefits—first in 2020 when the pandemic first set in, and then, again, last year post-2021 Budget—with the full extent of the benefit increases being realised on 1 April. We have addressed some of the most serious sanctions and gotten rid of them. Two, in particular, had huge consequences for children. There is still more to do with regards to our welfare overhaul, and we’re absolutely committed to doing that. What I will also add, though, is that addressing some of the needs of our most vulnerable New Zealanders is not just about addressing their needs through the welfare system; it’s important that we are equally putting a focus on and prioritising things like housing, our health system, our education system, and that’s what we as a Government are doing.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What are the Government’s plans to reduce food costs for low-income w’ānau, including beneficiaries, given that vegetable prices increased 19 percent in the year to September 2021 and food book usage more than doubled, and will this include breaking up the supermarket duopoly?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This probably falls out of my delegation and really sits more with Minister Clark, who has been undertaking some work in this space. However, what we have done that I can respond to more fulsomely with regards to our Government’s responses, we have rolled out our Food in Schools programme. That’s ensuring that our tamariki are getting access to healthy kai on the daily. It’s also saving money for those whānau that have children in low-decile schools. We’ve also invested heavily with regards to the New Zealand Food Network with the intent of—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Minister has answered the question some time ago.

Question No. 5—Finance

My question is to the Minister of Finance and asks: does he agree with Westpac Senior Economist Satish Ranchhod, who said this week that “over the coming year household spending levels will come under pressure from continued increases in the cost of living”; and if so, why won’t he provide New Zealanders with income tax relief to help them get through this cost of living crisis?

Hon Grant Robertson: A point of order, Mr Speaker. That’s not the question on the sheet.

SPEAKER: OK, let’s have a go at the question on the sheet, shall we?

5. to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with Westpac Senior Economist Satish Ranchhod, who said this week that “over the coming year household spending levels will come under pressure from continued increases in the cost of living”; if so, why won’t he provide New Zealanders with income tax relief?

In answer to the first part of the question, I’ve acknowledged many times in this House and elsewhere that New Zealanders are doing it tough amid a global energy crisis and ongoing supply chain constraints that are increasing the cost of living pressures. That’s why the Government’s acted, moving quickly to reduce fuel excise and halve public transport fares, to help Kiwis facing the pain of higher pump prices partly due to the war in the Ukraine. We’re also supporting New Zealanders by delivering income increases for low and middle income earners, which kicked in from 1 April, and we also have the winter energy payment that has come in from 1 May. A strong health-led response has meant New Zealand does find itself in a strong position to respond further to support New Zealanders, and we will always continue to look at ways of improving resilience of New Zealanders to absorb these types of global shocks. As to the second part of the member’s question, while her party’s preference is for untargeted tax cuts that would give her and her leader thousands of dollars, while giving low and middle income earners just $2 a week, we will not be doing that. As the International Monetary Fund noted in its recent assessment of the New Zealand economy, now is not the time for major tax changes as we emerge from a one-in-100-year economic shock.

Nicola Willis: Why is he persisting with the biggest Budget spend-up in New Zealand history, when Kiwis desperately need income relief and when, in ANZ’s words, “[there are] significant limitations on how much additional government spending can achieve in real terms given the degree of capacity stretch in the economy right now”?

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to let the Minister answer it, but I am going to warn that that supplementary was too long, and contained two assertions.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: When we look at the Government’s spending as a percentage of GDP, which is the consistent measure that we use, the Government is spending just a little above what the former National Government did as New Zealand emerged from the global financial crisis (GFC). The member will also know, when she looks at the Half Yearly Economic and Fiscal Update numbers, that that percentage continues to come down, and obviously that number will be updated at the Budget next week.

Nicola Willis: Well, does he believe there are limitations on how much additional Government spending can achieve?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Good Government spending—targeted Government spending—will achieve good outcomes for New Zealanders. On this side of the House, we have adopted a balanced approach throughout all of the time that we’ve been in office. In every single Budget—including Budgets under the previous Government—Ministers come forward with more Budget bids than there is money available, and prioritisation decisions had to be made; difficult prioritisation decisions. I’d also note that it is the National Party’s policy to spend exactly the same amount as the Government would in this Budget.

Nicola Willis: What is his explanation for delaying the return to surplus, given the tax take is growing, and the assessment by BNZ that “all else equal, a fiscal surplus should have been coming into view earlier, not later”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we traversed in the House last week, this Government will get us back into surplus five years after the beginning of this economic crisis, as compared with the National Party that took six years to get back into surplus after the GFC. I’m surprised the member is trashing Bill English’s legacy.

Nicola Willis: Does he agree with BNZ’s assessment that the Government’s tax take from individual taxpayers is up 16 percent year on year, and why is the Minister still unable to balance the books, even while he’s taking more tax from Kiwis than ever before?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Two parts to the question: the first is that, once again, the member is against more New Zealanders being in work, more New Zealanders getting higher wages, more New Zealand businesses making profits and, on this side of the House, we know that a balance in the Budget is important. We’ve kept net debt to some of the lowest levels in the world. We took it lower than where the National Party had it. The member will know, when she sees the Budget next week, that a careful balance has been struck to make sure we invest in public services, and keep a lid on debt.

Nicola Willis: Does he agree with his Tax Working Group that “bracket creep reduces the progressivity of our tax system as average tax rates for low income households increase over time.”, and why won’t he just let Kiwis keep more of what they earn?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we discussed in the House yesterday, bracket creep issues have confronted all Governments in the past. What the Government has to do is assess the balance in making sure that we invest properly in public services. We’re also coming out of a one-in-100-year economic shock. As the IMF indicated, now is not the time for major tax changes; now is the time to keep supporting New Zealanders, invest in public services, and look to the long term.

Nicola Willis: Why is the finance Minister taking more tax from Kiwis when they need that cash more than ever, and can he explain to this House why, in the middle of a cost of living crisis, he intends to bake in more future Government spending than at any time in New Zealand’s history?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we have discussed in this House, putting a Budget together requires prioritisation; it requires difficult choices. On this side of the House, we’ve prioritised supporting low and middle income New Zealanders through this crisis by making—

Nicola Willis: Your choice is a spend-up.

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —sure that we lift benefits, by making sure that we increase the family tax credit, by making sure that we lifted student allowances. All of those initiatives to support people through a cost of living crisis have been opposed by the National Party. So the reality is, actually, we have got the balance right over here; the member and her party would rather see that those on the highest incomes receive thousands of dollars a year while they would give those on low and middle incomes $2 a week while opposing all of the initiatives to actually lift New Zealanders’ incomes.

Question No. 6—Foreign Affairs

6. to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Noa’ia ‘e mauri. What recent announcements has she made about the Government’s ongoing response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?

Noa’ia ‘e mauri. Yesterday, I announced new sanctions targeting Russian disinformation and cyber-attacks as part of the Government’s ongoing response to Ukraine. This latest round of sanctions targets eight individuals and entities that are an integral part of Putin’s campaign of disinformation and cyber-attacks in Ukraine. Included in the list is the Russian ministry of defence spokesperson, the notorious Internet Research Agency “troll farm”, and the Russian intelligence agencies responsible for cyber-attacks on Ukraine. Sanctions mean these individuals and entities will no longer be able to travel or do business in New Zealand, and New Zealanders will not be able to do business with them. Vladimir Putin is using the digital space as a weapon in his callous war against Ukraine. Ukrainians have been subject to relentless cyber-attacks by Russia, and Putin’s propaganda machine has been attempting to spread lies and false information to justify his illegal invasion of Ukraine. With these new sanctions, we’re showing our complete commitment to responding to Putin’s aggression across all fronts.

Ingrid Leary: Fạiȧkse‘ea. How many Russian entities and individuals are now covered by New Zealand’s sanctions?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Since the Russia Sanctions Act was passed on 9 March, officials have worked at pace to introduce sanctions on this individuals and entities responsible for Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine. Five rounds of sanctions have been introduced, and over 700 Russian individuals and entities are now covered by the full suite of New Zealand’s economic and travel sanctions. This includes Vladimir Putin and the senior leadership of his security council; all 170 members of the Upper House of Russia’s Parliament; 36 oligarchs and close family with close ties and influence with the Russian Government; 19 financial institutions in total; and 24 entities, including weapons makers and Donbas militia groups. On top of this, New Zealand has put a 35 percent tariff on Russian imports across the board. The scale and pace of these sanctions is unprecedented for New Zealand. It shows our complete commitment to supporting the global effort to pressure Russia to end this illegal war.

Ingrid Leary: What is New Zealand doing to hold Russia to account for war crimes in Ukraine?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: We have all been sickened by the atrocities committed by Russian troops against innocent civilians in Ukraine, especially the shocking images from the town of Bucha. New Zealand is actively supporting international efforts to investigate these crimes and ensure those responsible are held to account. We were one of 41 countries to refer Russia’s aggression against Ukraine to the International Criminal Court for investigation. We’ve followed that up by being one of the first countries to make a financial contribution to support those investigations. Furthermore, the Government has recently provided $1 million to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to support ongoing monitoring and accountability for human rights inside Ukraine. The Government is committed to holding Russia and its leadership to account for its crimes. To this end, we’ve earmarked a further $500,000 to support legal accountability in Ukraine, including through the work of the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice.

Question No. 7—Education (School Operations)

7. to the Associate Minister of Education: Does she stand by the press release issued by her predecessor in February 2020 titled “School attendance has to improve”; if so, is she satisfied with her Government’s progress in tackling truancy so far?

Yes. I stand by the statement made by my predecessor the Hon Tracey Martin that school attendance has to improve, and I agree with her. That is why the Government is taking targeted action to re-engage students who aren’t attending regularly and investing in evidence-based initiatives that prevent disengagement early.

Erica Stanford: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m not sure that she addressed the second part of the question: if she’s satisfied.

SPEAKER: Well, I think she said “yes” right at the beginning.

Erica Stanford: If she is satisfied with her Government’s actions, why is it that we have seen a doubling of chronically truant students, with 60,000 children, under this Government’s watch?

Hon JAN TINETTI: As I’ve said before in this House, attendance started to decline in 2015. That was shortly after the Attendance Service was taken away into a more bureaucratic system from schools by the then National Government. I would admit that the two years of battling a global pandemic has had a major impact—and rightly so. Post-lockdown, some parents have been worried about sending their kids back to the classroom for learning, but this Government introduced a range of evidence-based practices to address that. Only today, I had principal from a decile 1 school contact me to say that they are incredibly excited that the ability that that has given them, that today they have 94 percent attendance back in their decile 1 school.

Erica Stanford: Why is it, when a year ago she received a comprehensive aide-mémoire from the director of policy at the Ministry of Education outlining actions to tackle truancy, that in a reply to my written question on what actions have implemented she replied, “I will announce the details of this work shortly.” and how is this in line with being proactive, as the report advises?

Hon JAN TINETTI: The member opposite will be aware that at the same time, there has been an inquiry that has been happening through the Education and Workforce Committee—of which she sits on. It is really important that we take all of the evidence into account. But I will say that over that time, we have not sat on our hands and done nothing. Over that time, Budget 2021 had $67 million focusing on preventing children and young people from disengaging from their learning. Just recently, I announced with my colleague the Hon Chris Hipkins, Budget 2022 had $88 million for targeted intervention. Over that time, we have delivered free counselling services, free health lunches, free period products. We’ve delivered enhanced learning support for our most vulnerable. We’ve delivered a—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! The question was answered some time ago. We don’t need the additional material.

Erica Stanford: In relation to the answer she just gave, if her Government have done all that, why has chronic—

SPEAKER: I’ll just get the member to start again. “In response to the answer the Minister gave”, I think, is a much politer way of saying it.

Erica Stanford: Sorry. Why is it that—given the Minister’s answer just now, why is it that 60,000 children are chronically truant, are doubling under her Government’s watch?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I do actually caution the member about her use of statistics, and her ability to interpret them is something, because we do need to look at the causes—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Now, this is one of the National Party’s front-bencher’s questions. If we’re going to continue with this question line, I want to be able to hear the answer, and because of the very loud noise from my left, led by Mr Bayly, which is quite unusual—“B” is a common factor to the noisy ones, but it’s not normally him.

Hon JAN TINETTI: We do need to look at the complete causal factors. The young people that the member is talking about are the most chronically absent. Often, there are out-of-school factors that are part and present of those young people’s lives. That’s why we need to make a whole-of-Government approach to those young people. We do want to see every young person and child participating and progressing in their learning.

Melissa Lee: What’s she done about it?

SPEAKER: Order! Look, was that Nicola Willis?

Melissa Lee: It was me, sir.

SPEAKER: Right. Well, seeing the member hasn’t been warned today, I won’t make her withdraw and apologise. But she’s not a new member and she knows what’s out of order.

Erica Stanford: What does she say to the 8,000 students who were unenrolled from the school system in March—the highest figure in three years—who are waiting patiently for her evidence-based approach to be announced, and does she think that she should be moving with a bit more urgency?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Again, I do caution that member about making assertions on that particular data. The students who aren’t in school or who are not represented in those figures could have left school recently to go into further forms of education, employment, or training, and they’ll still be counted in that figure. There needs to be an in-depth look at that, and using that figure just out of the air and plucking it out of the air is not the right approach to be taking. The students who aren’t in school or who are in another form of education, employment, or training will be referred to the Attendance Service, who deal with the most chronically absent children in our school system. Again, I reiterate that we want to see every child or young person present participating in their education, which is why we have put so much into this.

Question No. 8—Housing (Māori Housing)

8. to the Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing): How is the Government partnering with iwi Māori to deliver new homes for whānau?

Alongside my colleagues, Ministers Jackson, Allan, Whaitiri, and Davidson, I announced a new investment partnership between Government and iwi collective Toitū Tairāwhiti to build up to 150 new homes for whānau who need them the most. This partnership will deliver affordable rent-to-buy homes across the wider Tai Rāwhiti region and the Ōpōtiki district, getting whānau into secure, warm, and dry homes quickly. The partnership represents an innovative new approach to unlocking and enabling by Māori, for Māori housing solutions and is funded from Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga, the Government’s record $730 million commitment to accelerate Māori-led housing solutions. We know that innovative initiatives like this are critical for getting a lot more new housing built where it is needed the most, and they will also help stimulate regional economies in our construction sector to help them recover from the impacts of COVID-19.

Shanan Halbert: How does this partnership reflect the Government’s wider strategy for Māori housing?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Today’s announcement follows on from our partnership with Ka Uruora that we announced late last month and both projects exemplify the promises we made when we launched Maihi Ka Ora, our National Māori Housing Strategy, and Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga. We said we will do things differently and work in partnership with Māori to deliver a better Māori housing future for our whānau. Above all, we promise action to change the status quo. The partnership we announced today is just such action with $55 million in investment to enable Toitū Tairāwhiti to get whānau into homes quickly while reconnecting them with their whenua.

Shanan Halbert: What reaction has he seen from Toitū Tairāwhiti about the announcement?

Hon PEENI HENARE: As I said this morning, with this announcement we are making good progress to turn around the status quo for Māori housing. I’ve seen the comment from Mr Willie Te Aho, managing director of Toitū Tairāwhiti Housing, who said, and I quote, “The next 150 kāinga will start to deal with high housing deprivation across Tai Rāwhiti. Thank you to the Minister and officials that visited. You came and spoke to our whānau. You came into our decrepit homes. You opened new builds. But, most importantly, you heard our cries of anguish. You listened to our united front. We have lots of work ahead of us, but together we will get there.” We know there is more mahi to be done, but our by Māori, for Māori solutions are delivering for whānau in Te Tai Rāwhiti.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, in particular this Government’s efforts to prevent hundreds and thousands of New Zealanders from experiencing the long-term impacts of job loss and business closure, through measures like the wage subsidy. Our plan laid a platform for an economy to bounce back more quickly than other countries. Unemployment remains at record lows and private sector wage growth was 5.3 percent. Exports are growing; GDP was up 3 percent in the last quarter. We’re now in a strong position to grow our economy while keeping debt low and making targeted investments to support New Zealanders through these uncertain times, lift incomes, and support vital health services like health and education, and get infrastructure built.

David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware that 667,000—or 14 percent of New Zealand’s population—were born in a non-visa waiver country; if so, how can she justify to them making them wait until July before their non-resident family can apply for a visitor visa?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the announcements that the Government made today bring forward the time at which those from non-visa waiver countries can enter New Zealand, and we believe that the path that we’ve taken is responsible and careful.

David Seymour: Does she stand by her statement to the effect the border will be fully open in July, or would, upon reflection, it be more accurate to say that people will be able to apply for visas to come through the border in July?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, it has always been necessary for people from non-visa waiver countries to apply for visas.

David Seymour: Is the information on Immigration New Zealand’s website accurate when it says that a visitor visa can take five months to process; if so, does she accept that many of those people who are obliged to apply for a visa won’t be able to book their travel this year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, some of those people will have visas that will allow them—that they already have—to be able to come in. In terms of the exact processing times, they will be matters that Immigration New Zealand will be dealing with. They have assured us that they are ready for us to have brought forward the return time by two months.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister have confidence in her Minister of Immigration; if so, how is it possible that after two years of the border being shut, the constraint on people being able to come here is processing times at Immigration New Zealand?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes, I do have confidence in the Minister, because what he has done today is announce a simpler, smarter immigration system; one that’s going to give businesses better access to making sure that they have the workers that they want and balancing that against making sure that people are paid well and have good working conditions.

Kieran McAnulty: Does she stand behind her policy of the winter energy payment?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely. The winter energy payment is one of the policies that we get the most feedback on. It’s something that makes sure that our most vulnerable—our older New Zealanders—get looked after. Any party, any party, who decided that they were going to take that away would be on the—I think New Zealanders would look very, very darkly upon. I’d also say that New Zealanders would look at that in the context of other policies, such as freezing the minimum wage, such as increasing the pension age—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! The member’s getting to a familiar list for which he’s not responsible.

David Seymour: Point of order. If you are saying that familiar list was ACT’s policies, the Minister’s actually misrepresented them in a material way, in both that he’s mentioned so far.

SPEAKER: Luckily, I’m not responsible for the accuracy of Ministers’ statements. If the member is identifying them in the same way as I am, he’s got the general debate coming up and he can have a crack then.

David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, it’s a very clear point of order I made. You are responsible for endorsing his list, and I don’t think that adds anything to the order of the House.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m also responsible for making it clear that he is not responsible for other parties’ policies. It became clear to me that he was answering as if he had some ministerial responsibility for that, which he doesn’t. If I’d let him go on, I’m pretty certain that David Seymour would have been complaining.

David Seymour: Mr Speaker, I think you’re missing the point here. You are the one who is asserting that that’s an accurate list.

SPEAKER: I’m asserting no such accuracy. It might be an inaccurate list, but it’s in the same general order, in the same ballpark.

Question No. 10—Emergency Management

10. to the Minister for Emergency Management: How is the Government supporting grassroots emergency resilience initiatives?

On 2 May, I announced nine regional initiatives to strengthen community resilience to emergencies through the Civil Defence Emergency Management Resilience Fund. The range of projects supported includes projects in resilience to rain events in Tai Rāwhiti, a coastal community resilience guide for the Chatham Islands, earthquake education kits in Hawke’s Bay, a regional resilience analysis for Marlborough, a coastal community resilience guide for the Chatham Islands, and the continuation of a programme in Nelson Tasman and Marlborough to bring together the eight mana whenua to strengthen Māori planning and preparation for emergencies. Each of the initiatives is strongly focused on futureproofing regional emergency management arrangements and making resilience more inclusive for businesses and communities.

Rachel Boyack: What support was provided to the West Coast to support preparations for an Alpine Fault rupture?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Due to its isolation, its topography, and its proximity, the West Coast is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of an Alpine Fault rupture. Recent research shows there is a 75 percent chance of the Alpine Fault rupturing in the next 50 years and an 82 percent chance that such an earthquake would be a magnitude 8 or higher. A boost of $340,000 through the resilience fund has been provided to a project to enable better access to emergency fuel and power supplies and bolster local emergency communication options. It’s a practical and vital investment that will help to build on the outstanding work done by the AF8 project in the region and elsewhere.

Rachel Boyack: How has the resilience fund previously supported communities?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The resilience fund taps into the rich knowledge and expertise of our front-line emergency management practitioners in the regions, making it possible to progress smart new initiatives and test innovative ideas. It has made possible a number of valuable projects in recent years, such as the overall AF8 Alpine Fault earthquake response plan, East Coast LAB (Life at the Boundary), and the marae preparedness tool kit. Support such as that provided by the fund will also be increasingly important as communities adapt to the impacts of climate change and why the Government’s proposed national adaptation plan is so critical right now.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Given that report on the Alpine Fault and the likelihood of it, do you think that’s a good reason that people—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! The member will start again, without an assertion and without bringing me into it. He’s been around here a while; he should know.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Given—

SPEAKER: No, not “given”. You can’t do “given”, to start with.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Does the Minister think that the report she has received is a good reason that people should rush down and see the West Coast as quick they can?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: That’s a fantastic opportunity to go down to the West Coast.

SPEAKER: That would be a very good question for the former Minister of Tourism.

Question No. 11—Health

11. to the Minister of Health: Why have solitary confinement rates increased in mental health inpatient facilities despite the $1.9 billion announced for mental health, and what is his response to the Chief Ombudsman, who said about his recent mental health reports, “the Ministry of Health needs to answer to you and the public as to what it’s done with the taxpayers’ money”?

In response to the first part of the member’s question, solitary confinement in mental health facilities occurs under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. There are some patients who, for their own safety and the safety of others, must be kept apart from others. That’s why there is independent clinical oversight and, given its age, why also we are repealing and replacing that dated legislation. It’s not correct that solitary confinement rates are increasing. This is confirmed in the most recent report from the Health Quality & Safety Commission. The Budget 2019 investment that the member refers to principally addresses the major gap in our mental health services offering in primary care. It’s a five-year programme due to be completed in 2024 and has so far resulted in more than 900 front-line roles in 341 GP practices, covering about 46 percent of the enrolled population. It’s provided for the delivery of about 380,000 sessions, and almost 22,000 people were seen in March alone, receiving 12 therapies. All of these services were not available to New Zealanders two years ago. In response to the second part of the member’s question, the Ombudsman’s statement appears in a media article in reference to a MidCentral DHB mental health facility that’s scheduled for an upgrade. This Government has committed to a number of mental health facility upgrades as a consequence of the years of neglect of those facilities under the previous Government. In relation to MidCentral, the new facility is in the final design stage, and I expect construction to commence late this year. All mental health infrastructure projects are the subject of routine oversight and monitoring by Treasury and the Health Infrastructure Unit, and good progress is being made.

Matt Doocey: Why does he think there have been so many questions asked recently about where the money has gone for mental health?

SPEAKER: I’ll let the Minister answer it. I’m not sure that there is a responsibility for that.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, many questions have been asked, particularly by that member and some of his colleagues, and I think the reason is that some people just don’t listen.

Matt Doocey: So the mental health sector who are asking where the money has gone are not listening?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: My contact with many people in the mental health sector is that they are fully aware of the reviews of the 2019 $1 billion programme; reviews that have been conducted by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Implementation Unit; the reviews conducted by the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, the independent monitor of mental health services in this country; and a range of others, and they’re fully confident of where the money is going.

Matt Doocey: Who does the Minister think the public believes is not listening—the mental health sector or the health Minister?

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to give the member a chance to rephrase that to get something he is responsible for, and general public views isn’t one of them.

Matt Doocey: Is he aware of the Chief Ombudsman’s comments that, “This really is a matter for the Ministry of Health. They are the stewards of the taxpayers’ money to oversee and implement acceptable mental health practice. They’re not doing it.”, and why do we now have another damning mental health report about his ministry?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, I refer the member to the Ombudsman’s comments specifically about ward 21 in Palmerston North Hospital, which is the MidCentral facility that I think is at the centre of the member’s question. He noted the improvements in that facility. He reported that clients were positive about their treatment and care on the ward and had positive relationships with staff. The Ombudsman was positive about that facility. He was concerned, as indeed we all are, with the physical facilities. That’s why this Government has invested in upgrading not just the five facilities as part of the 2019 package but a range of other facilities. That means we now have an extensive mental health infrastructure programme that is making progress to improve the therapeutic environment which many of our acute mental health patients are in.

Matt Doocey: Why has only 2 percent been spent of the $75 million announced almost three years ago for the three new mental health inpatient facility sites recently visited by the Chief Ombudsman?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The mental health infrastructure programme is well under way. The first thing that has to happen, with any medical facility, is that it has to be well designed. Those design processes are reaching their conclusion. I might add for the member’s benefit, because he’s been confused about this before, that there is a difference between the drawdown of capital spending that DHBs—as is currently the case—make for capital works and what they themselves spend. They spend ahead of the drawdown, and that is the case with most of these mental health infrastructure projects.

Matt Doocey: In light of that answer, why is the Minister not aware that the 2 percent figure I gave him was the actual spend—the drawdown is only 1 percent—and is this another example of the Minister not over his detail and not knowing that mental health in-patient facilities have stalled?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member is just incorrect in his assertions about the mental health infrastructure projects. They are progressing. The final design stage is in place for all but one of the projects, and the one that it isn’t is the Waikato facility, which is about to go for its final approval to the Capital Investment Committee. But I am confident that good progress is being made with all of the projects.

SPEAKER: Question No. 12—Jan Logie.

Matt Doocey: A point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a document—what’s the word I’m looking for?—put together by my office—

SPEAKER: Well, I think the member stops right there, because a number of Speakers have ruled that documents put together by members or their offices are not documents for tabling in the House. I think we’ve had at least three Speakers rule that—not me. But I’m going to—

Matt Doocey: It’s a shame. It would help the Minister a lot.

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

Matt Doocey: Withdraw and apologise.

Question No. 12—ACC

12. to the Minister for ACC: How does she respond to the findings of the Helen Clark Foundation report on perinatal mental health, which calls on the Government to expand cover for mental injury under the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill so that support is available for mental injuries resulting from a traumatic birth?

I acknowledge the important issues raised by the Helen Clark Foundation’s report on perinatal mental health. Currently, a mental injury is covered if it is caused by a physical injury covered under the Act, and these provisions will apply to the new maternal birth injury cover in the same way they apply to all physical injuries. The result means more women will receive cover for perinatal mental health issues. However, I do not intend to expand mental health cover in this legislation to women whose perinatal mental issue is not the result of a physical injury. This support will continue to be provided by the health system. Expanding this scheme to include broader cover for mental injuries would be a significant expansion and would have many complexities to work through. It would require careful analysis of the impacts and costs, and significant consultation.

Jan Logie: What would she say to Casey, whose traumatic birth wouldn’t be covered by the birth injuries bill, and who submitted of her birth: “I can’t bring myself to process it, yet simultaneously will have recurring traumatic flashbacks. I need mental health support but there is none available to me that is funded. It is devastating. It is impacting my ability to be a Mum.”?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Of course, I think every single person in this House hearing Casey’s story would empathise with Casey. The piece of legislation that we have before the select committee, which expands the offerings of ACC to cover maternal birth injuries, is not a piece of legislation that is going to respond to the needs of all women, however. I absolutely appreciate that there is more support and investment needed in the health system in particular, but also acknowledge that we as a Government have invested $1.9 billion into mental health. There is still more to do and we hope to be able to continue to make progress so that we can respond better to the needs of people like Casey.

Jan Logie: Does she think it’s fair that a midwife assisting in a traumatic birth who experiences PTSD as a result would be eligible for ACC’s support for mental injury but the mother herself would not?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: In 2022, you know, we are having much more comprehensive and expansive conversations about mental health. More than what we would have done 50 years ago when the ACC Act was implemented. We do need to consider what ACC’s role is with respect to mental health cover. However, we can’t just pick one particular area to focus on. I think this is a longer term piece of work for ACC—certainly something that I’m interested in. However, we’re not going to see the expansive cover that the member would like to see in the particular bill that we have before the select committee.

Jan Logie: Does the Minister think it’s acceptable to leave mums like Casey with stand-alone mental injuries out of the bill when the Clark Foundation report has found that maternal suicide is the leading cause of death in Aotearoa amongst pregnant people—five times higher per capita than the UK?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I feel that the member’s question is slightly unfair, given that actually for the first time we as a Government have taken an equity lens to the ACC legislation and looked at the way in which ACC is serving the interests of population groups like women. We were able to move quickly with regards to bringing together legislation to put in front of this House to actually provide cover for up to 18,000 women per year who experience birth injury. That is significant progress. Is there more to do? Absolutely. There’s also more to do in the health system, which we are committed to doing, and our health reforms clearly demonstrate that. Not everything will be covered through ACC, but we need a health system that responds effectively to the women and the injuries that that member is speaking of.

Jan Logie: Is the main reason stand-alone mental injuries relating to birth aren’t covered in the new bill to constrain costs; and, if so, how does she expect to fix the roughly billion-dollar payout difference between men and women in the ACC scheme?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The answer to the first part of the member’s question is no. And with regards to the disparities that exist between women and men and the amount of cover and the types of cover that men get versus women, we are absolutely addressing that. In fact, for the first time this Government is addressing that. I’m very proud of that. We’ve made some significant steps already. There is more to do, and I look forward to doing that.

Jan Logie: Does she agree with the Clark Foundation report that: “We need our political leaders, policy-makers, and the stewards of the new health system to understand the evidence, champion the needs and rights of pēpi and whānau in their decision-making”, and if so, will she, as Minister for ACC, adopt their recommendation to extend mental injury cover in this bill in front of Parliament?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I believe I already am championing this issue. I think that we are the first Government to actually put a lens to the ACC legislation to uncover the disparities that do exist, and then off the back of getting that information, have already acted. I’m looking forward to what else we can achieve during our term. I’m looking forward to modernising ACC and making this 50-year-old taonga of ours more representative and effective for the New Zealand of today, and not the New Zealand of 50 years ago. But we’re not going to be able to achieve all of that in this one bill. There’s much more work to do beyond this.