Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “I acknowledge that a number of New Zealanders are facing a cost of living crisis”; if so, will his Budget include income tax reduction for New Zealanders who do not qualify for any Government benefit or Working for Families payments?

I do stand by that statement, which is why the Government moved quickly to reduce fuel excise this month—to help Kiwis experiencing pain at the pump due in particular to the price increases triggered by the war in Ukraine. It’s also why the Government, at the end of last year, put in place measures to increase support for the family tax credit and also the 1 April changes that are coming forward. In response to the second part of the member’s question, she well knows that the Budget decisions are not announced at this point in the process, but what I can say is that there is no place for the kind of tax package that she and Christopher Luxon are proposing, where they’d get a multithousand-dollar tax cut while those on middle incomes get two bucks a week.

Nicola Willis: Why does he think middle-income earners should not receive tax relief, when according to ANZ “CPI inflation is moon-bound” and—

SPEAKER: Order! I’m just going to ask the member to start the question again in a question form without an assertion at the beginning.

Nicola Willis: Does he think middle-income earners should receive tax relief, when according to ANZ “CPI inflation is moon-bound” and “Inflation pressures are extremely broad-based and still intensifying”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What most economic commentators are acknowledging is that those inflation pressures are indeed continuing. They are driven by supply chain issues, by the rise in the oil price that comes out of Ukraine, and by—

Nicola Willis: What are you going to do about it?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —a whole lot of matters that are beyond the control of New Zealand. On this—

SPEAKER: Order! Let’s get it right, right from the beginning. The member knows she must not interject in that way, doesn’t she? Right. No more.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On this side of the House, we have determined that the best response for us at the moment is the fuel excise duty cut that we’ve made; to make public transport half price; to continue to invest in strong public services like health, education, and housing, while supporting those on low and middle incomes, including through the family tax credit changes.

Nicola Willis: Does he agree with ANZ that “Households are facing increasing headwinds and budgetary pressures”, and if so, will he offer tax relief to households who are ineligible for Working for Families support?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the question, yes, and that is precisely why the Government has acted the way that we have. If the member wants to talk about meaningful tax relief, I invite her to go out and talk to people who are earning around $48,000 a year and explain to them why $2 a week is meaningful for them, where thousands of dollars a year is suddenly meaningful for her and her colleagues.

David Seymour: Does the Minister accept that core Crown tax revenue taken from New Zealanders has increased by $17 billion a year since 2020, and if so, how is that not the time to cut taxes and let people keep some more of their own money?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I do accept is that, yes, the Crown’s tax take has increased. That is partly as a result of the fact that companies are making greater profits, partly as a result of the fact that more people are being employed and earning higher wages, and partly as a result of the fact that we’ve had confidence in the economy that means people have been going out and spending.

David Seymour: If things are so good, then, why can’t the Government afford for people to keep some more of their own money when they’re facing record high prices and being squeezed at the petrol pump and the checkout?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On the last point around the fuel, that’s precisely why the Government did do what we’ve done in terms of moving swiftly to make sure that we relieve that pain at the pump. Overall, the Government’s tried to get the balance right here. That’s making sure that we do support those on low and middle incomes, who are the most affected by rising prices, while at the same time making sure that we do actually invest in health, education, housing, and the public services that New Zealanders want and deserve.

Nicola Willis: Is it the Minister’s position that New Zealanders who don’t qualify for a Government benefit or Working for Families are too rich to need tax reduction, and if so, how does he explain that to a New Zealander earning an average wage of $72,000 a year confronting a cost of living crisis with no income relief in sight?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I don’t accept the first part of the member’s question. In answer to the second part of the member’s question, on this side of the House we understand that all New Zealanders benefit from a properly funded health system. That isn’t something that the National Government delivered back to New Zealand when we took office. We have consistently continued to increase that investment, but much, much more needs to be done. The member might want to reflect on those who sit around her who want a great deal more money spent in our health system, but that won’t be able to happen with the tax cut package she’s proposing.

Nicola Willis: Why would he deny $1,600 in tax relief for a two-income family, each earning $60,000 a year, who are faced with a cost of living crisis—

SPEAKER: Order! The question—just get to the question.

Nicola Willis: Why would he deny the tax relief to that family facing the cost of living crisis, rising mortgage payments, and predictions of worse to come?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On this side of the House, what we are ensuring is that those who are the most affected by the increase in the cost of living do get support. At the same time, we have reduced fuel excise duty, which means that every single household in the country that relies on going to the petrol station is better off.

Nicola Willis: Why should a worker whose wage has only just kept up with inflation pay more tax today than they did four years ago, and why won’t that Minister provide $800 in annual tax relief to someone earning $60,000 a year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On this side of the House, we’re extremely proud of the fact that wages have actually gone ahead of inflation for the period of time that we have been in Government, up until the point that we have a global supply chain crisis and we have a war in Ukraine. On this side of the House, we want to make sure that we support low and middle income people through this, and all New Zealanders, through initiatives such as the fuel excise duty cut.

Nicola Willis: Is he concerned about New Zealanders like Sarah, who writes, “My family have left New Zealand as we cannot afford to live there anymore. We are now in Brisbane. Our rent has halved, our cost of living has halved, and there are plenty more opportunities for us all.”, and will his Budget contain measures to ensure tax-paying middle-income Kiwis can see better prospects in New Zealand than over the Ditch?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What the Budget will contain is a continuation of this Government’s balanced approach that makes sure that we invest in health, that we invest in education, that we invest in housing, and that we do support New Zealanders to make sure that they’ve got economic security through good times and bad. What the member’s party is proposing is once again the National Party tilting the playing field to those who have the most away from those who have the least.

Question No. 2—Finance

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

Statistics New Zealand reported earlier this month the GDP rebounded by a solid 3 percent in the December 2021 quarter. On an annual basis, the economy grew 5.6 percent and was 3.5 percent higher than the pre-pandemic December 2019 quarter. The New Zealand economy finished 2021 in good shape overall and shows that the actions of hard-working New Zealanders are making sure that we respond to the pandemic well. The support from the wage subsidy scheme and the resurgence support payment help cushion the impacts of Delta and allow businesses to bounce back quickly. Unemployment is at a record low and we’re in a strong fiscal position with debt levels well below those of countries we compare ourselves with.

Dr Duncan Webb: How widespread was the growth in the December quarter?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The expansion was broad-based. The services industries, which make up two-thirds of our economy, rose 2.5 percent, with strong gains in retail accommodation and restaurants. And with the opening up of the borders, the future is bright for those in those sectors. The goods-producing sector also performed strongly, with manufacturing up 6.5 percent and construction up 8.7 percent. In contrast, primary industries during this period did see a fall of 2.2 percent as inclement weather affected growing conditions. We know that some sectors and regions and businesses have been doing it tough. We’re continuing to support those who have been affected the most, and, as our borders open to workers and tourists, that will help accelerate our recovery and build on New Zealanders’ successful response to COVID-19.

Dr Duncan Webb: What other reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the ANZ New Zealand Business Outlook for March was released today and it shows that business confidence has recovered by 10 points, while firms’ own confidence in their activity rose five points. Activity indicators generally, including hiring and investment intentions, also lifted slightly. ANZ said that the improvement was likely due to waning fears about the impact of the Omicron outbreak, although everyone acknowledges the confidence does remain low against historical trends. We recognise that challenges remain as businesses deal with inflation pressures due to global factors, including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has driven up oil prices, and the ongoing impact of the pandemic on supply chains. While economic growth is forecast to slow this year, the resilience of the New Zealand economy and our strong fiscal position means we’re in good shape to be able to support New Zealanders to deal with these challenges.

Question No. 3—Social Development and Employment

3. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she believe too many New Zealanders are dependent on jobseeker support; if not, why not?

Jobseeker support is there for New Zealanders who need it and qualify. Over the course of the past two years, many people have had to grapple with the possibility of losing jobs. Many New Zealanders became more aware of what they may or may not be eligible for through the welfare system. We believe the welfare system is an integral safety net for those that lose jobs or are unable to find employment. We also need to keep in mind that of the 178,821 receiving jobseeker support, 77,619 receive the health and disability exemption. We would also never deny sick or disabled New Zealanders access to the welfare system where they are eligible.

Hon Louise Upston: How can the Minister claim “We are tracking in the right direction.”, when 116,000 people have now spent longer than one year on jobseeker—an almost 50,000 increase under Labour—when businesses are desperate for workers?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: If we look at what was happening two years following the global financial crisis, we see that about 13.1 percent of the working-age population was on benefit. At the moment, we have gone through a very serious economic crisis, off the back of the pandemic, and two years after it started we are looking at 11.1 percent of our working-age population on benefit. Early predictions were much worse than what we’re seeing now, and what we are seeing are the best exits off benefit into employment than we’ve ever seen since economic records were kept or started being kept. We absolutely do believe that we are tracking in the right direction and we are focused on continuing with this mahi.

Hon Louise Upston: How can she claim “We have increased our focus on getting people back into work.”, when fewer people on benefit for three years or longer have exited into employment in 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 compared to 2017?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We’ve discussed these numbers in the House before. When you have an increase—

Hon Louise Upston: No, we haven’t.

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: —an increase—

SPEAKER: Keep going.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: When you have an increase in the numbers of people on benefit, then in every time period you will see that raw figure go up as well. There hasn’t been a significant increase in the proportions in any given category. However, we do watch it closely. It’s also important to note that when we have difficult economic times and the labour market is tight, which at times it has been over the course of the last two years, then those that were already disadvantaged in the employment market will be even more disadvantaged in the employment market. So we continue to invest in the right places and are targeting those who need most support through the welfare system not only for income support but, of course, for upskilling and training and employment support.

Hon Louise Upston: Should someone be able to continue receiving the jobseeker benefit if they do not take up a vacancy in a local supermarket?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The member really needs to be clear that she’s talking about the jobseeker work-ready versus the jobseeker benefit where people have a health condition or disability. About 43 percent of those that are on the jobseeker benefit have an exemption because of health condition or disability. In the past, unfortunately, there has been very little focus on supporting that particular cohort, and only recently have we, as a Government, launched a—the first ever, I believe—disability employment action plan. There are lots of barriers in place for people that are on benefit to finding employment, and we shouldn’t just put it down to their lack of willingness to work. We’re very focused on removing those barriers whilst supporting those people into employment.

Hon Louise Upston: Does she agree that children’s outcomes are better with a parent in work?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Yes, often that is the case. That’s why we invested as a Government into the Training Incentive Allowance—the Training Incentive Allowance that was disestablished by the previous National Government. All of the research tells us that a child’s level of education—

SPEAKER: Order! I am going to interrupt the Minister. She, I think, answered the question in the first word, and some of her answers have been very long. Is there a further supplementary? No.

Question No. 4—Energy and Resources

4. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What is the Government doing to enable development of offshore renewable energy in New Zealand?

In November last year, I announced the Government would commence work on the regulatory settings needed to enable the development of offshore wind generation in New Zealand. The Government recognises New Zealand’s significant potential for offshore wind generation presents an exciting opportunity to support our transition to net zero carbon by 2050, stimulate regional economic activity, create jobs, and provide renewable electricity. We will be working with stakeholders, including iwi, Transpower, the New Zealand Wind Energy Association, Government agencies, environmental advocacy groups, and others, on the settings to enable offshore wind generation. The work is already providing certainty to investors, with a number of major future investments in offshore wind on the horizon.

Glen Bennett: What response has she seen to the work the Government is doing to enable offshore wind development?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In the last few months, we’ve seen interest from a number of potential independent generation partners looking to invest in offshore wind generation. Yesterday, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners announced feasibility work into a massive wind energy development offshore in the South Taranaki Bight. The project is initially planned to deliver 1 gigawatt of electricity, 11 percent of New Zealand’s current electricity demand, and could power over 650,000 homes. The project would see an estimated $5 billion pumped into the New Zealand economy, including in Taranaki, stimulating regional economic activity and creating jobs. It’s an example of the kind of exciting 21st century energy projects that will help us decarbonise our energy system.

Glen Bennett: What will be the role of iwi in the development of offshore wind in Aotearoa?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: It is crucial that Māori interests and rights are incorporated, and, therefore, any regulatory tools or frameworks will need to be worked through in a meaningful partnership with iwi Māori. I’ve already met with iwi leaders in Taranaki, who have shared their views on how we can work together on a fair and equitable transition away from fossil fuels in Taranaki. Iwi leaders have shown strong interest in new energy projects and the potential of offshore wind. Our engagement will continue while we work to understand the significant benefits of offshore wind.

Question No. 5—Health

5. to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with the Mental Health and Well-being Commission’s monitoring report finding that “improvements in services have not materialised as we had hoped for over this time”, and what is his response to the article in New Zealand Doctor that says, “the $1.9 billion Wellbeing Budget touted as a game-changer, the Government has done little or nothing for mental wellbeing”?

I acknowledge the total context in which the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission made its findings, which also included the following finding: “we [the commission] acknowledge some examples of genuine progress. There is evidence of growing collaboration between public health services and other community-based organisations. We recognise the enormous effort that is going on to effect changes like this, which we believe will ultimately pay huge dividends in service improvements.” It should be noted that this report that the member refers to did not focus on the access and choice programme, which is the integrated primary mental health care programme we’re implementing and which was the subject of a separate published report last October. But I do agree with and acknowledge the sentiment of the latest report by the commission, which is that there has been slow progress in improvements in the acute end of mental health care. So far, as this Government rebuilds mental health services, which were badly neglected by the previous Government, we have given priority to primary mental health services. This has seen around 870 fulltime-equivalent new front-line positions created that were not in place two years ago. Regarding the comments by Barbara Docherty, I have read the article that Ms Docherty wrote and I find her comments ill-informed and confused.

Matt Doocey: Is he aware of the report finding “access to specialist mental health … and addiction services has not changed over the past five years.”; and does he think this is a good outcome for the $1.9 billion announced for mental health by his Government?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I am aware of that comment and that’s why I also reminded the member that the centrepiece of the $1.9 billion programme is the money that this Government is putting into primary mental health care services. The 2018 report He Ara Oranga made it very clear that the biggest gap in mental health services was for those with mild to moderate mental health conditions and that report recommended that priority be given to those services. That’s what we’ve given priority to; that explains the 870 fulltime-equivalent new roles in primary mental health care services. The reason why I find Ms Docherty’s comments so confusing is that she seemed to be criticising this Government, separately from the primary mental health care services, for a recruitment campaign to get more mental health workers into the acute end of services.

Matt Doocey: When he says his new front-line mental health service at 870 fulltime-equivalents at 20,000 sessions a month, has he done the figures that show that is one appointment per worker per working day?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’ve got around and met some of the people who are actually doing these front-line roles, doing many sessions, many appointments in their work, and they are doing fantastic work—doing the very sort of work that Ms Docherty says in her article needs to be done. So, for example, last week I met Adam. Adam is a former butcher by trade but he’s got into mental health supported services through a range of his own personal experiences and he is doing incredible work with a range of people in the Tauranga Moana area and helping them get on top of fitness issues, activity issues, and nutrition issues to the point where the day I met him he had that very morning accompanied one of the people who he was supporting in a trip to the supermarket to assist them in making good choices on food and nutrition. That’s the stuff that actually makes a difference to people and gets their lives back under control and helps with their mental wellbeing.

Matt Doocey: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the question: was he aware of the calculation.

SPEAKER: And we had a very, very long answer—[Interruption] Ms Willis, will you ever learn?

Nicola Willis: I was genuinely laughing at your joke.

SPEAKER: I’m now trying to decide whether the member wants to stay here or not. You know, getting up and putting another comment in while I’m on my feet is even sillier than her first attempt. Now, Mr Doocey, your question as to calculations and maths was right at the edge of being ruled out. We had an answer which was, as I indicated, far too long and addressed much more than it should have. Do you want a further supplementary? If so, wait until after Brooke van Velden.

Brooke van Velden: Does he believe that money spent is a better indicator of success than measured results?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No. I look at what is actually happening on the ground and when you add 870 fulltime-equivalent roles to the front line of our mental health services—so people who have levels of anxiety, low levels of depression, people who just need that little bit of extra help to get on top of the issues that they are confronting in their lives and can get that free of charge, and ongoing assistance—that’s the stuff that makes a difference. It’s happening now and it’s helping New Zealanders up and down the country.

Matt Doocey: Is he aware of reports that there has been a “catastrophic collapse” of Wellington’s Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service, with an exodus of staff resulting in ballooning waiting times, and does he think this is a good outcome of the $1.9 billion announced for mental health by his Government?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’ll try to help the member again, because the principal investment made in the $1.9 billion was for services for those with mild to moderate mental health problems. We know that there continue to be challenges in the acute end of services and, in Wellington, I can assure the member that the DHB is taking appropriate action, including relying on the assistance of senior mental health professionals from other DHBs and from out of the region, and doing their best to keep abreast of the major challenges that the services here in Wellington are facing. When I look across acute mental health services generally across the country, they are holding up, but it is true to say—as the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission acknowledged—more assistance is required.

Matt Doocey: Can he explain why solitary confinement, as shown by this graph, was trending down prior to 2017, and is now at record levels under his Government?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: What we do know is, from a range of reports from the Ombudsman and from other independent monitors, that this has continued to be a problem. I think the most recent reports show that most DHBs who operate mental health facilities, where this has become a regular practice, it is starting to improve but more is required, and that is why—and again, in accordance with the recommendations of the He Ara Oranga report—we are reviewing the mental health Act so that the powers and responsibilities of those running acute mental health services are aware of their responsibilities.

Question No. 6—COVID-19 Response

6. to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What recent announcements have been made relating to changes to the COVID-19 Protection Framework?

Last week, the Government announced simplified changes to the COVID-19 Protection Framework that are designed to target the restrictions to those activities which reduce transmission of the virus the most. These new settings, which came into effect last Friday, support greater economic activity and get everyone closer to feeling that life is back to something more normal whilst also continuing to manage COVID-19 and provide protection and care for those who need it the most. New Zealanders have worked incredibly hard to get through this pandemic, and as a result of those efforts, we’re now in a position to move forward and to change the way that we do things.

Paul Eagle: What do these changes mean at red, and is he confident that it is safe to make these changes in the current environment?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: At red, face mask requirements remain the same for indoor venues, but they’re no longer required outdoors, recognising that outdoors, the transmission risk is significantly lower. Where a My Vaccine Pass is used, indoor capacity limits increase up to 200, noting that seated and separated rules for food and drink in businesses will remain at red. All of these changes have been informed by public health advice based on the latest evidence from here and overseas, and on the advice of the Strategic COVID-19 Public Health Advisory Group. With our high vaccination rates and the immunity acquired from the current outbreak, we can manage future waves of Omicron with less restrictive settings.

Paul Eagle: What will these changes mean at orange, and does this modified framework account for the possibility of a new variant?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: At orange, all capacity limits are removed but face masks are still required in many indoor settings. For indoor events, we know that close contact is a higher risk, so to help organisers continue to provide the safest possible environments, we’re encouraging larger events that have over 500 people to either add extra capacity at their venue or to provide seating. It’s an encouragement, not a requirement. The public health measures that we use are under constant review, and then we continue to be informed by public health advice, and when the virus has changed, so too has our approach. If another variant does emerge that is more severe, our approach will continue to be informed by public health advice. Keeping the traffic light framework in place helps us to minimise the current outbreak whilst also helping to protect us against future unknowns.

Paul Eagle: What do these changes mean at green, and what is the ongoing plan for quick response (QR) codes?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Ultimately, green means guidance and not requirements. However, we want people to keep up good health habits and to look after those of us in the community who are at higher risk of getting seriously ill from COVID-19. Green is very much the new normal. There are no requirements or restrictions, but there is some additional guidance. With regard to QR codes, people are no longer required to scan at any level of the framework, and businesses are no longer required to provide the mechanism to do that. However, if a variant arises in the world which evades vaccine, or is more deadly, contact tracing will likely become critical once again. So we don’t want to throw away all the hard work, expertise, and learning which went into the process the first time around. So we’re asking that businesses and others stand ready to be able to put up their QR codes again if required, and for people to be prepared to pull out their tracer app again if it’s needed in the future.

Question No. 7—Local Government

7. to the Minister of Local Government: Does she stand by her statement that “Māori have not expressed rights and interests in three waters assets over and above those as ratepayers within their respective communities of interest”; if so, what justification is there to apply a co-governance model to three waters entities?

On behalf of the Minister, yes, I stand by my statement. Iwi have not expressed rights and interests in the assets themselves. That is not to say that they do not have rights and interests in the three waters system more broadly and an interest in service delivery. What I have heard is a concern from iwi about the state of water infrastructure, the safety of our drinking water, and protecting our freshwater resources for future generations. These are concerns that we share, and that’s why we’re undertaking the three waters reforms. The current situation where thousands of New Zealanders get sick from their drinking water is simply unacceptable and doing nothing is not an option.

Simon Court: Does this mean that over four years of consultation on the Three Waters Reform Programme not a single iwi or hapū has expressed rights or interests in three waters assets; and, if so, why did the Minister decide that co-governance should be the centrepiece of her Three Waters Reform Programme?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the second part of that question, the centrepiece of the Three Waters Reform Programme is making sure that thousands of New Zealanders don’t get sick every year from drinking the water that comes out of their tap.

Simon Court: Does the Minister believe that all ratepayers regardless of their ethnicity should have equal representation on three waters service delivery entities; and, if not, why not?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think the member needs to make sure he gets clear in his head the difference between ownership, governance, and management. In the case of these assets what we’re committed to on this side of the House is public ownership. I think the ACT Party is a new-found convert to public ownership of assets like this. No—Mr Seymour is shaking his head, so they’re not. What we do know is we that want regional representative groups that do cover off local authorities and mana whenua in the governance space and then to make sure we have competency-based boards running the entities.

Simon Court: Has the Minister asked iwi and hapū whether they prefer a co-governance model or if they would prefer to invest in three waters assets through public-private partnerships?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Here we are—the real agenda of the ACT Party is now out here, and the smokescreen that ACT is putting up around co-governance issues to cover up for the fact that they still want to privatise the assets. Roger Douglas called—he wants his policies back.

Simon Court: Will the Minister accept that Māori have not expressed rights and interests in three waters assets and, therefore, make a commitment to dump co-governance from the three waters reform agenda?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In respect of the first part of the question, on behalf of the Minister, that’s what I said in my answer. In respect of the second part of the question, no, because on this side of the House we believe that it’s possible for New Zealand to have a modern, sophisticated democracy where we recognise the rights and interests of all New Zealanders.

Question No. 8—Transport

8. to the Minister of Transport: What recent progress has been made to improve transport links in the Wellington region?

It was my pleasure to join the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and parliamentary colleagues—past and present—to officially open Transmission Gully today. This road represents one of the largest Government investments in New Zealand’s transport infrastructure in a generation. It’ll transform the Wellington region, making it quicker and easier for goods and people to travel through the lower North Island. The 7- to 15-minute shorter journey for about 25,000 vehicles per day means a productivity gain of around 1,600 hours, meaning less time spent in cars, and more time at work and with family. I know this day has been a long time coming for Wellingtonians. Ministers have worked hard to ensure that the road can open safely, as soon as possible. I’m sure that Wellingtonians will enjoy the benefits of this important asset.

Greg O’Connor: How will projects such as Transmission Gully contribute to the COVID-19 economic recovery?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Projects such as Transmission Gully will help New Zealand to bounce back from the impacts of COVID-19 better. Transmission Gully will develop economic benefits, with faster movement of freight and people around the region. It’ll build more resilience into our transport links. This is why the Government is investing a record amount into infrastructure all across New Zealand, to reconnect New Zealanders, to reduce emissions, and also to support jobs across our economy. As part of the 2021-24 National Land Transport Programme, and with local government, the Government is investing a record $24.3 billion into transport services and infrastructure—74 percent more than the previous Government.

Ginny Andersen: What safety and resilience benefits will Transmission Gully provide?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Government’s road safety vision is an Aotearoa where no one is killed or seriously injured on our roads. Reaching this vision requires improving all parts of our transport system: safer roads, safer vehicles, safer drivers, and safer speeds. Transmission Gully is built to the highest possible safety specifications, and will provide a much safer route for road-users in the Wellington region. The new motorway will also see fewer vehicles using the old coastal route. Transmission Gully also provides a safer and more reliable route to ensure that Wellington remains connected in the event of an earthquake, or a major storm severing other transport links.

Hon Grant Robertson: Does the Minister have any reflections, on this historic day, about what could have been done better when it comes to the construction of Transmission Gully?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The Government shouldn’t have rolled over in the first place.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I have a number of reflections, but let me keep it relatively brief in response to the member’s question. It’s very important that when any Government invests in significant infrastructure projects like this that they do so in a competent way, that they do so in a way that is transparent, and that they do so in a way that ensures value for taxpayers’ money. There are many lessons to be learnt from this project, and I refer members of the House to a recent report from the Auditor-General to give good information around that.

SPEAKER: Order! I’m just trying to reflect on whether that question and answer breached the—I think it came very close, and on that basis I will give Mr Brownlee the opportunity to ask an extra supplementary if he so wishes.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I don’t have a—

SPEAKER: No, he doesn’t.

Simon Court: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: Sorry?

Simon Court: Mr Speaker, I’ll take Mr Brownlee’s supplementary.

SPEAKER: No, you won’t. It’ll be a long time until the member gets to that point.

Question No. 9—Transport

9. to the Minister of Transport: Does he have confidence that the Government is not increasing the cost of vehicles for New Zealanders; if so, why?

Yes, I do. The Government is committed to ensuring the cost of vehicles are manageable and that fast and reliable public transport alternatives are available, particularly for New Zealanders on the lowest incomes. That’s why, for example, we’ve reduced fuel excise duty and will be reducing road-user charges for the next three months. We’ve halved public transport fares for the same period. We’re offering rebates for new and used low-emissions vehicles, and we’ve started work to reduce the cost of getting a driver’s licence. On this side of the House, we’re supporting Kiwis not only to manage the cost of vehicles but we’re also committed to expanding access to low emissions vehicles and public transport options that will help New Zealand reach our decarbonisation goals.

Simeon Brown: Why are the fees under the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Act coming into force this Friday when it will significantly increase the cost of many vehicles by thousands of dollars for Kiwis, who are already struggling under a cost of living crisis?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: If the member is referring to the fees that come into effect as a result of the clean car standard, it’s important for members of the House to be aware that those fees do not in fact come into effect until 2023. If he’s referring to the fees that come into effect as a result of the clean car discount, then it’s important for people to be aware that balancing out those fees, there are a range of significant discounts on vehicles and that, in fact, recent modelling shows that more than half of the vehicles—both new and used—coming into the country will either attract no fee or will attract a discount. What importers of vehicles also tell me is that the clean car scheme is supporting them to get increased stock of clean and more efficient vehicles into the New Zealand market, which is good for Kiwi consumers in terms of giving them more efficient vehicles.

Simeon Brown: Does he agree with the Prime Minister, who stated of ute buyers that “A large number of those buyers of those vehicles are not using them for the legitimate use”, and, if so, is this why the Government is increasing the cost of utes?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I always agree with the Prime Minister. The member’s characterisation of why the Government is pursuing its clean car package policy is not correct and I do not agree with it.

Simeon Brown: Does he agree with the Motor Industry Association chief executive, who said, “plug-in hybrid utes might become more widely available by 2025 and full battery electric utes after that.”, and, if so, why is he penalising farmers and tradies with a ute tax when they currently have no electric alternative?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I agree with the Motor Industry Association, along with the vehicle importers association, along with the Automobile Association (AA)—all of whom support the Government’s clean car discount scheme. I’m also very pleased to confirm to the member and the House that the first vehicle importer into New Zealand to offer an electric ute—LDV—has started taking orders on those vehicles in recent weeks, and the industry assures me that they continue to work very hard to improve the supply coming into New Zealand over the next 12 to 24 months.

Simeon Brown: So how many fully electric utes will be available in New Zealand this Friday?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As I’ve just explained to the member, LDV, the first importer who has confirmed they will be bringing electric utes into New Zealand, is starting to take orders on them, which are expected to come in later on in the year. But what the member also needs to know is that the vast majority of utes which are bought and sold in the New Zealand market place, are bought and sold on the second-hand market, which is unaffected by the clean car discount scheme.

Question No. 10—Immigration

10. to the Minister of Immigration: Does he agree that disabled migrants are discriminated against by the acceptable standard of health criteria in immigration policy; if so, will he commit to an immigration system that upholds the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?

on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: On behalf of the Minister of Immigration, this Government supports inclusive policies for migrants with disabilities. This does need to be balanced with ensuring that people who apply to move here will not place significant demands on our health system, which has a finite capacity to provide for the universal healthcare needs of New Zealanders. That is why we have a threshold test. Partners and dependent children of New Zealand citizens and residents, and refugees, will ordinarily be granted a waiver of that threshold, even if it’s not met. A balance is appropriate. The Government is reviewing whether the current threshold is appropriate but is not proposing to remove all thresholds.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does he think it’s inclusive to send Ruby, a four-year-old girl who was born here, back to Ireland due to her TBCK diagnosis, and reflective of the value of care and inclusivity that this Government claims to uphold?

SPEAKER: Order! Can I just check whether the member has the agreement of the family to bring that person up in the House? I’m not going to rule the question out, but members normally do, when they’re bringing up a very specific individual immigration case like that, make it clear that they’re doing it with the permission of the people involved.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Yes.

Hon DAVID PARKER: There will always be difficult cases where individuals do not meet immigration requirements, and there is a waiver system to ensure that discretion remains, but that does not mean that the discretion will always be exercised in favour of waiver of rules.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why is he applying the discriminatory acceptable standard of health policy to convention and community sponsorship refugees, and does he think this is a humanitarian approach to refugee resettlement?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Answering as I am on behalf of the Minister, I’m not briefed on that particular issue, so if the member would like to either ask that when the Minister is in the House or put down a written question, I’m sure that could be addressed.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Will he commit to working with disabled people and the Office for Disability Issues to review the acceptable standard of health policy, and if not, why not?

Hon DAVID PARKER: As I said in answer to an earlier question, the threshold is being reviewed, but it’s not proposed to drop it.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why is he only choosing to review the $41,000 acceptable standard of health cost threshold, given that recommendations from the disability convention’s Independent Monitoring Mechanism, migrants personally impacted, the Office for Disability Issues, and the Education and Workforce Committee all point to the need to either remove this policy or carry out a much wider review?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Because we do not believe it is either necessary or appropriate.

Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

11. to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent announcements has he made regarding updates to responsible lending rules?

The Government is making amendments to responsible lending rules to curb any unintended consequences that might be caused by the Credit Contract and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA) legislation. The amendments we’re making are informed by the feedback I’ve received from banks, from other lenders, from consumers, and from budget advisers, and they sit comfortably within the intent of the Act. During my meetings with banks in particular, I’ve detected little enthusiasm for wholesale changes to the Act but instead a preference for practical amendments which ensure the purposes of the legislation are best met.

Naisi Chen: What does this mean for the review being run by the Council of Financial Regulators?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: That broader investigation is ongoing. Thus far, the investigation has thrown up no reason to believe the CCCFA is the main driver in reduced lending. The Reserve Bank’s December figures highlight seasonal variations as a prominent contributor. Furthermore, in December 2021, first-home buyer lending was still above lending for the same month in 2017, 2018, and 2019—and well above first-home buyer lending prior to that. It’s important to note that the practical changes we’re making are not the final word, and further amendments will be considered after the full investigation wraps up in April.

Naisi Chen: What reaction has he seen, following the announcement?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: John Bolton, the chief executive of lender Squirrel, remarked that these were appropriate changes that didn’t throw out the baby with the bath water. He went on to say that it was a “good outcome”. Kiwibank CEO Steve Jurkovich praised the changes as quick action which would make a significant difference for consumers. In the last 24 hours, we’ve heard from Harcourts managing director Bryan Thomson, who told media that the amendments were “heartening news for first-home buyers and others trying to make home-buying decisions from across the board”.

Question No. 12—Police

12. to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement “the reality is that this Government has never been more active in targeting the gangs and criminal leaders and getting them off the streets”; if so, how does she reconcile that statement with the over 40 percent increase in gang membership since October 2017?

I thank the member for his question—the same question he asked me yesterday. In answer to the first part of the member’s question, yes. This Government is committed to combating the harm caused by gangs and organised crime through a variety of measures which I outlined yesterday. In answer to the member’s second question, the member is referring to the national gang list—an intelligence tool designed to give police a high level understanding of the gang environment. It was never designed to be an accurate statistical count of gang membership in New Zealand. This Government will continue to support police in their work to disrupt organised crime and gang membership.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why did the Minister not establish a well-resourced, dedicated national gang task force when the Labour Government was called on by National three years ago to do so; and does she think that it might have helped prevent the over 40 percent rise in gang membership and the 21 percent increase in violent crime?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I stand by the record investment that this Government has made into increasing police numbers: 1,800, to be exact, 700 of which will be targeted towards organised crime. If that is not a specific group to deal with organised crime, I am not sure what is. We’ve already recruited 300 and we are well on our way to having the dedicated 700 members of that organised crime group by June next year.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Has gang violence increased or decreased under her watch?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: There is no doubt that violence and gang tensions are a feature of our community and we have to do everything we can to ensure that we deal with that, and we do that by ensuring the police have the resources that they need—a record $450 million increase into their budget. I might remind that member that under their Government they froze police funding, which meant there was a drop in police numbers. We are committed to 1,800 further police and we are committed to also further legislative support to ensure that our police can keep our communities as safe as possible.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order.

SPEAKER: I think I can anticipate it, but have a go.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Can I ask the question again, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Yes.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Thank you. Has gang violence increased or decreased under her watch?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I reject the premise of that question, because in order to keep our communities safe, we must ensure that our police are resourced to do so. Now, I’d like to remind that member yet again—yet again—that, under National, police numbers dropped because they froze funding. You cannot do more with less, Mr Mitchell. You must make sure your police are resourced to do the job that is in front of them, and that’s what we are doing.

Hon Mark Mitchell: What exactly is the premise that the Minister is rejecting?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I reject the premise that gang tensions have increased under this Government’s watch, because we have Operation Tauwhiro, which resulted in a thousand arrests; every week, the organised crime groups are seizing millions of dollars’ worth of cash and assets; they’re making dozens and dozens of arrests. We are supporting the police to do a significant job. Can I remind that member he used to be a police officer and he spends every day in this House disrespecting and diminishing the work of New Zealand police, and I stand by the police every single day against your record.