Oral Questions

1. to the Prime Minister: Is she confident the Government is delivering on its infrastructure commitments, particularly its commitment to light rail from the city to the airport in Auckland?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, we are confident that this Government is delivering on infrastructure, including the $12 billion announced in January before COVID-19, the $4.6 billion spent so far on rail, and the $3 billion of infrastructure investments announced just yesterday. Our latest achievement was announced only this morning by the Minister for Infrastructure and Minister for Regional Economic Development, Shane Jones: $40 million to develop a regional freight hub north-east of Palmerston North.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Does she agree with the reported comments of Green Party co-leader James Shaw that New Zealand First’s killing off of Auckland light rail this term was a slap in the face of Aucklanders and breached the coalition agreement between Labour and New Zealand First; if not, why not?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, Mr Shaw has many qualities, but being up to date on contractual law may not be his forte, because you’ve got to be a party to a contract to insist upon its terms being referenced. That’s why I’m saying that, but it’s not a criticism. There was an agreement between Labour and the Greens in which it’s mentioned, but it’s not mentioned in the coalition document that we signed up to. Now, that said, people are entitled to put their options, and in the New Zealand Herald today you see the other side of the story, which is widely being read by supporters of the National Party—know where they must go to now.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I am going to remind the Prime Minister to speak in the Prime Minister’s voice.

Chlöe Swarbrick: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m just seeking your guidance with regard to the statement by the Hon Nikki Kaye about the quotation from the Hon James Shaw. I’m just seeking some clarity on what she is stipulating was actually the quoted text.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, it’s probably—no, I’m not going to ask for it to be done again. My view is that we can have a look at it later on, but there’s not going to be anything added to it. If the member is of the view that the quote was misleading, then there are other ways of taking that up, and doing it now is not one of them.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Does she agree with the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who referred to the agreement to begin work on Auckland light rail as “loose drafting”, and is this why construction has not begun?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, the reality is that work on the light rail concept did begin. The Ministry of Transport asked for proposals. The transport Minister received them. They were consulted on. But, alas, we did not get agreement. Those are the facts.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Is it her view that the Deputy Prime Minister’s decision to oppose the light rail Cabinet paper last week was based on good faith and a no-surprises approach?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, such a statement about being part of a no-surprises approach demonstrates someone’s lack of familiarity with the Cabinet Manual and what the no-surprises approach is about. Why on earth would a consultative document, which relates to a judgment on facts, be a matter of no surprises? Or is it a surprise to that member, for example, that, in terms of costings, that was not advised or being told? That member, by the way—and I can say—in July 2010, July 2011, and September 2011 made three separate steps with respect to light rail and did nothing about them whatsoever.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Is it correct that the cost of the NZ Infra proposal for light rail was as high as $10 billion?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, there is a secrecy provision inside the costings which does not enable us to disclose them.

💬 Hon Member: Aww.

But before we say, “Aww, aww, aww,” can I mention Transmission Gully, where the whole project has stopped. Now it looks like it’s going to cost more to finish it than it’s cost thus far. I’d like to know who over there, including the former member Steven Joyce, did the fiscals, because it was amateur hour.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Referring to the primary question, can the Prime Minister confirm that the Government inherited a $5.9 billion hole in the Auckland Transport Plan?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, alas, that is the truth. That’s what we inherited, because they talked a big game but they never delivered.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Does she agree with her Deputy Prime Minister that the light rail proposals would have cost untold billions and seriously obstructed Aucklanders moving around their city for years?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, there have been attempts with respect to light rail led by that member in July 2010, July 2011, and September 2011, when she was presenting a petition to Parliament. Can I just propose to say this: that such a definitive, well worked-out, fiscally judged project that she says she supports—would surely know what the cost is. Does she know what the cost is?

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Why won’t the Government, after multiple requests from the Auckland Council, confirm which shovel-ready ready projects it is funding, so they can set their budget and their rates?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, that’s a marvellous question, actually, because—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: The shovels are still in the shed.

Well, I know something. That member’s never seen a shovel—ha, ha!—and it shows. I mean, anybody that’s done any physical work, they keep their shape all their lives.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! That’s—

Well, he started it.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, he might have started the interjections. He didn’t take it down to that level. The Prime Minister will withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. Can I answer the question though, Mr Speaker?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I feel obliged to say that I have kept my shape all my life.

I fear he’s got me there. On behalf of the Prime Minister, with respect to these projects—listen up—$350 million for the improvements to the Wiri to Quay Park Corridor; $371 million to extend notification of Papakura to Pukekohe—

💬 Hon Louise Upston: It’s been done.

—$211 million for the improvements to Wellington, Wairarapa, and Palmerston North networks—

💬 Hon Louise Upston: It’s been delivered.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. Louise Upston, it’s bad enough that you interject into four mikes at a time, but when you bring me into it, you are definitely disorderly, and you will cease interjecting this question time.

—$400 million for the Interislander ferry replacement; $247 million for the Drury railway stations; and $6.2 million for the Napier to Wairoa railway. Auckland is getting a stack of that money as well.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: What is the name of a number of infrastructure projects that she has announced and actually completed?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, this question is impossible to fathom. What is the name of what?

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: What is the name of infrastructure projects that she has not only announced and completed?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, infrastructural projects take years, but getting started is what we do, and we’re getting started now. All around this country, from Invercargill to Kaitāia, things are getting started.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Is ensuring long-term water supply for Auckland an infrastructure commitment for the Government, and, if so, will the Government heed the calls from Shane Jones and Nikki Kaye to include in their COVID fast-track bill the Watercare consent application?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, I can answer that member by saying we’re already on to it and very shortly we will have provided a solution.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Does that mean the Government will include in the COVID fast-track bill a Schedule 2 inclusion which would ensure the Watercare application for additional water for Auckland is a fast-track project under the bill?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, the intent being dealt with by David Parker is to cover the issue of concern that he’s got. In fact, this Government has borrowed the slogan from President Truman, “Action, this day.”

💬 Hon David Parker: Can the Prime Minister confirm that this week the Minister for the Environment called in the large long-term consent application for direct reference to a board of inquiry, which is a similar but not identical process to that which is in the fast-track bill, and also that there is an expectation that water for this summer will be made available by Hamilton City Council as well as the additional 25 million litres per day that has already been consented?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, both of those propositions as shaped in the question can be answered in the affirmative.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: How many infrastructure projects have been announced and actually started under her Government?

Actually, to use the biblical phrase, the number is legion, all around this country—far too many for me to articulate today.

Question No. 2—Education

2. to the Minister of Education: How many children does he expect to benefit from the recently announced Government’s free and healthy school lunches programme?

Today, I announced that 18 schools in Otago and Southland with 3,000 students are joining the programme. This is on top of the 42 schools that are already taking part. Across New Zealand, we’ll be expanding free and healthy lunches to around 200,000 New Zealand schoolchildren by the end of next year. When fully implemented, one in four schoolchildren in New Zealand will receive a free and healthy school lunch every day.

💬 Marama Davidson: How will the expansion of this programme create jobs for local families and whānau?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It’s estimated that around 2,000 jobs in local communities will be created from the expansion in Budget 2020, including jobs for around 30 people in Otago and Southland. This is based on what we know from the existing pilot. For example, the school lunches at Murupara Area School are delivered by Manawa Munchies, which is a business set up specifically for this purpose, which is employing three local people. Similar examples exist up and down the country.

💬 Marama Davidson: What are the benefits of this programme to the students and the community as a whole?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Shortly after the programme was launched, the Prime Minister and I visited a school in Flaxmere where they had been delivering the programme for several weeks. The teachers there commented that the student behavioural issues in the school had declined, that the afternoon sessions were a much more productive time for learning, because the children had food in their stomachs. They reported that their breakfast programme had increased attendance because all of the stigma associated with eating food at school had gone down, and, as a result, the kids were healthier, they were happier, and they were learning more.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: What did he mean yesterday by his comment on the tax system that “by and large, it is fair and balanced”, and does he think changes to the tax system will be required?

I meant to express my view that, by and large, the tax system is fair and balanced. As with all Governments, there have been areas where we have looked to improve fairness and balance—for example, such as cancelling the tax cuts proposed by the previous Government which would have disproportionately benefited the wealthiest New Zealanders, and taking the decision to redirect that funding to low and middle income New Zealanders through the Families Package. The Government continues to work on changes to the tax system where we think they’re required—for example, on making sure multinationals pay their fair share.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think some New Zealanders will need to pay tax at higher rates?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government has made a commitment not to change the rates of income tax.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Who will pay for all the extra spending he announces every day?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is being paid for through the hard work of New Zealand taxpayers and through the ability of New Zealand to borrow against our very strong and robust balance sheet, and the fact that we came into this crisis with one of the lowest rates of debt in the world.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: I might try that again: who will pay for all the extra spending he announces every day?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Speaker, I did just answer that question.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Isn’t it true that we all will pay, including our kids, and, if so, can he now assure people that every dollar he is spending is considered and focused on results?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the last part of that question, absolutely. In answer to the middle part of that question, I think all members in the House can see the impact that happens when we don’t invest in current generations now and in the moment. That’s what happened in the late 1980s and early 1990s in New Zealand, and the scarring effect of children growing up in homes where their parents are unemployed or where their parents cannot afford to put food on the table is the thing that this Government is determined to avoid.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has he had a report from the education Minister as to where the $87 million worth of modems sent to schools after they returned from lockdown has gone, and is that a good example of good quality spending?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The vast bulk of those modems went to support young New Zealanders to learn when they were in lockdown, to bridge the digital divide. A small number did not go where they were intended, but the vast bulk went to the exact purpose we wanted, which was to make sure that young New Zealanders could keep learning.

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: Has the Minister heard about the tax initiatives loss continuity and feasibility expenditure—initiatives that the tax community and the business community have been asking for, for years, but only sorted by this Government?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, I have. Both of those initiatives have been championed by the very modest Minister of Revenue, who’s done an excellent job in ensuring that New Zealanders pay a fair share of tax.

💬 SPEAKER: Oh well, I would just remind the member about irony, but we’ll go on to question No. 4.

Question No. 4—Health

4. to the Minister of Health: My question is to the Minister of Health, whom I welcome to the portfolio. Did any records held by the Ministry of Health on 17 June contain details of whether all 2,159 people who left managed isolation between 9 and 16 June received a test before they left managed isolation?

I’m advised by the Ministry of Health: no. The process to compile that information began on Wednesday, 17 June. All necessary information was available to the Ministry of Health on Saturday, 20 June. The Ministry of Health then commenced a comparison from the Healthline database against the lab testing database to determine which individuals could be confirmed as having had a test. It’s important to note that the problem has now been fixed, and that all 2,159 returning New Zealanders completed their 14-day isolation stay, which is the safest way to ensure that there is no community transmission.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: So is it correct to say that health officials had no idea who of those 2,159 people were tested prior to departure, and that the first question they are asked when contacted is not, “Please have a test.” but “Was a test undertaken?”

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That is clear from my answer that the Ministry of Health did not have that reassurance when those people left isolation. That is not an acceptable situation, and it has been fixed.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: In respect of “has it been fixed”, are there still 367 people who have not been contacted to ask whether or not they had a test, as at this morning?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Those are approximately correct numbers. Of course, they are changing as more people are contacted. But I do want to point out that these people all completed 14 days of isolation. They have now been in the community for more than 14 days, and we have seen no evidence that there is any transmission within the community, despite the fact that New Zealand has one of the highest rates of testing in the world relative to the number of positive results.

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: Can the Minister confirm that he has been informed by the Minister responsible for managed isolation and quarantine that since 17 June, as well as now having direct batch data returned to the managed isolation facilities as well as the individualised test to notify of a negative day 12 test, there is now double verification of that batch data taking place?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I can confirm to the House that the issues that were identified have been fixed, and that very robust processes are in place.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Then is it correct to say that if those 367 people are not successfully contacted by the Ministry of Health, the country will never know if they left managed isolation without having been tested?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It is possible that some of those people won’t be able to be contacted. Whilst the Ministry of Health will make every effort to ensure that they are contacted, it is important to note that there is no evidence that any of the people who left managed isolation during that time have taken COVID-19 into the community.

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: Has the Minister seen any evidence or verification from health officials that a random homeless person wandered into a managed isolation facility before 17 June, and has the Opposition provided any evidence to that effect?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No. I’m afraid to say no evidence has been produced to verify that claim. I am, of course, willing to accept that at any given point in time.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: In respect of that previous question, how on earth would they know?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because the officials went to detailed lengths to check security camera footage, to check the individual records, and there was no evidence that the member’s claim had any veracity whatsoever.

💬 SPEAKER: No. The member is referring to statements made in the House, and the member can’t say that they lack veracity. I’ll require the Minister to withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I withdraw and apologise.

Question No. 5—Economic Development

5. to the Minister for Economic Development: What action has the Government taken to help save jobs and protect incomes in the domestic events and screen sectors?

Yesterday, my colleagues the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, the Hon Kris Faafoi, and myself were pleased to announce a screen sector recovery package. We’re injecting $73.4 million into New Zealand’s domestic screen industry to help 230 screen productions with their COVID-19 - related extra costs and to save thousands of jobs. We’re also investing a further $140 million in the screen production grant for international film productions, which employ thousands of New Zealand crew. Of this investment, $25 million has been reallocated to support New Zealand feature films. And, finally, I also announced yesterday a new $10 million fund for the domestic events sector to prevent the loss of existing events which contribute to regional economies.

💬 Tamati Coffey: How does the screen sector recovery package support investments that the Government has already made?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, $23.4 million will go into the screen production fund for additional COVID-related costs incurred by productions that NZ On Air and the New Zealand Film Commission have already invested in. The remaining $50 million has been reallocated to produce up to five feature films or limited-series screen productions. This will create jobs and opportunities.

💬 Tamati Coffey: How does the screen production grant create jobs and boost our economy?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The screen production grant has allowed New Zealand to attract large international productions, which support local businesses, lead to the creation of spin-off businesses, and provide invaluable training for Kiwis, who go on to work in our world-class domestic screen productions. Without this rebate, we would simply not be able to compete with other, international locations. In the 2018-19 year, the screen production grant paid out $138 million and spurred $605 million of economic activity. The Film Commission estimates that, on average, 90 percent of the crew on international productions are New Zealanders, and last year the main live-action projects employed 3,400 people, and that doesn’t include the visual effects projects, including the likes of Weta Digital, who alone employ 1,500 people.

Question No. 6—Infrastructure

6. to the Minister for Infrastructure: What criteria, if any, did the Government use to allocate the $239 million announced yesterday from the $3 billion allocated to infrastructure in the COVID-19 Recovery and Response Fund, and what explains the length of time between his announcement that the Government had had 1,924 submissions to the Infrastructure Industry Reference Group and the announcement yesterday?

on behalf of the Minister for Infrastructure: The $239 million represents a sample of the types of projects we will be supporting. The overall investment package we announced yesterday includes around $210 million for climate resilience and flood protection projects, $155 million for transformative energy projects, about $180 million for large-scale construction projects, and $50 million for enhanced regional digital connectivity. As for criteria, the group was asked to develop a pipeline of projects that were shovel-ready, meaning they could get under way within 12 months; preserved and created jobs; and had a national or regional benefit. As the member quite rightly points out, more than 1,900 submissions were received. Ministers received the initial Infrastructure Industry Reference Group report in mid-May. I believe the six weeks between then and yesterday is easily explained by the need to assess and prioritise the projects and move with alacrity and velocity.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why did the Infrastructure Commission not provide him with advice regarding the guidelines employed by the infrastructure reference group to assess the submissions it received, when surely doing jobs like that is exactly why the Infrastructure Commission was established in the first place?

As I covered yesterday in the House, the Infrastructure Commission chair Alan Bollard was a member of the group, alongside Mark Binns, Brian Roche, Greg Miller, Rosie Mercer, and Andrew Crisp. They all represented different parts of both the private and public sector and they were all involved in the process.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why has Auckland Council written three times to the Government without reply, urging them to announce what of the 73 projects they put forward will be funded so they can finalise their budget?

The question of why Auckland Council writes something is up to Auckland Council.

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, it is out of order, clearly.

💬 Chris Bishop: Sorry, do you want me to reword it, Mr Speaker?

💬 SPEAKER: You can have another supplementary if you want to.

💬 Chris Bishop: Has he seen the comments from Peter Silcock from the civil contractors association, namely: “We need details in the form of specific projects and tenders coming to market ASAP, or we may see extensive job losses”, and why has it taken the Government so long to announce this alleged pipeline?

I have seen those comments. I’ve also seen the comments this morning from Gisborne about a massive win for the region with the funding there; also from Rotorua this morning about the shot in the arm for this region, with 1,000 new homes and 300 jobs. I’ve seen the reports from the West Coast of $90 million being put in; $260 million in the Otago region—and it goes on. There will always be a wide variety of views, but the regions are welcoming these announcements.

💬 Chris Bishop: How can the public have confidence in the figure of 20,000 jobs to be created, when the Government’s own Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) data shows that the $3 billion PGF has created just 1,200 jobs in nearly three years?

I’ll pass on to Mark Binns, Alan Bollard, Andrew Crisp, Rosie Mercer, and all of those people who were responsible for those estimates, the member’s cynicism.

💬 Chris Bishop: Can he assure the House that the full list of infrastructure projects will be known within the next two weeks, or does he intend to drip-feed them out over the next 79 days?

That is the plan—that they will be released as soon as we’ve done all of the final due diligence on them. And I’m sure the member will look forward to all of the announcements in the continuing headlines that we have seen today.

Question No. 7—Employment

7. to the Minister of Employment: How does the performance and capacity of his employment programmes help the thousands of New Zealanders who are unemployed due to the coronavirus outbreak?

First of all, congratulations to that member on his promotion in the National Party—ngā mihi ki a koe. The Government has moved quickly to respond to the labour market impacts of COVID-19 by swiftly ramping up our employment and redeployment supports. Within my portfolio, we have seen a significant increase in capacity for a range of initiatives, including He Poutama Rangatahi, Mana in Mahi, and jobs and skills hubs. This increase in capacity will see, for instance, He Poutama Rangatahi now reaching up to 15,000 of our young people in need. My employment programmes are designed to help those who have been most marginalised from the labour market and face the biggest barriers to employment. Those are people who might have various complex needs, and it’s not a simple job to support them into secure and rewarding work. However, our initiatives and investments are an all-of-Government project, because COVID-19 requires an all-of-Government response, and we’re working together on this.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Can he confirm written question No. 12308 from two days ago that the Government’s flagship employment programme, Mana in Mahi, has capacity for only 2,000 placements per year?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I can confirm that the aim is to get 2,000 placements over four years.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: If there are currently 40,000 unemployed people and his flagship employment programme can only enrol—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will ask the question in a straight manner and without the pejorative.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: If there are currently 40,000 unemployed people and his employment programme can only enrol 2,000 a year or less, how many unemployed New Zealanders cannot take up Mana in Mahi this year?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: it’s not just Mana in Mahi that is responsible for fixing the unemployment problems in this country. We just the other day announced a $2.6 billion infrastructure plan that will bring 20,000 more jobs to New Zealand—20,000 more jobs. On top of that—our $1.1 billion programme in terms of the green economy, 11,000 jobs; $1.6 billion in terms of apprenticeship investments; 15,000 extra in terms of He Poutama Rangatahi. It’s not just about Mana in Mahi, although the Opposition seems to be fixated on that.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Can he confirm his reply to the first question that Mana in Mahi will enrol 2,000 people over four years?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That is the aim of Mana in Mahi. That’s been our aim right from the start, and there is no problem that—

💬 Brett Hudson: They’ve got no aspiration over there.

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, we all have aspirations. That is the goal, and we’re on track at the moment. But I will say that it is a worry that the Opposition seem to have a problem with programmes with Māori names. A programme with a Māori name, Mr Reti—you should know—can provide for everyone.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether or not, in these programmes that he is funding, there is any sense of pigeonholing or being paternal about the placement of Māori, for example, at 13 and 17—specially reserved for that occasion and these events?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, it’s not about being paternalistic, Minister, and thank you for the question. Mana in Mahi is open for everyone. It just has a Māori name. Could the National Party get that through their heads? Programmes with Māori names can fit for everyone. It’s a sad indictment on that party that they don’t understand that.

💬 Marja Lubeck: Why was increasing capacity important to the Government’s response to COVID-19?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: In answer to the question, just as the Government has gone hard and early on our public health response to COVID-19, so have we gone hard and early on supporting those who face displacement or unemployment because of the global impact of this virus. One of the biggest and earliest responses was the wage subsidy scheme, which has supported over 1.5 million jobs and paid out over $11 billion. This has kept people in work and given employers the ability to get going again as we relaxed our public health restrictions. We have invested early in job creation through redeployment and supporting the creation of new jobs, especially in the regions. We’ve increased capacity in our programmes, which has made it easier for people to undertake training—

💬 SPEAKER: OK, OK—[Interruption] OK, we’ve had enough. Thank you.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Can he confirm written question No. 11043 that regional leadership skills groups have employed zero people to date, given they were established a year ago and he has stated in this House that they are one of his critical employment programmes?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I think the member is getting confused with our skills hubs in Auckland, our Sector Workforce Engagement Programme hubs in Auckland, which have been going for some time. The regional skills hubs have just been announced, and of course no one has been employed. The essence and the main point of our regional skills hubs is for our leaderships to come together—iwi leadership, industry leadership, union leadership—and put forward a strategy and policy for those various regions. I’m excited with the establishment of the regional skills hubs, and that member may want to play a part in terms of the development of the northern one.

Question No. 8—Sport and Recreation

8. to the Minister for Sport and Recreation: What progress has been made on the implementation of the Government’s Women and Girls in Sport and Active Recreation strategy?

The Prime Minister and I launched the Women and Girls in Sport and Active Recreation strategy in October 2018. It’s aimed at improving and increasing leadership, participation, and value and visibility. Since then, we have seen significant progress including $2.7 million of funding through High Performance Sport New Zealand to support women into leadership and elite coaching roles. The Sport New Zealand activation fund has invested in nine projects to lift participation and support young women to be physically active. And we have held the first New Zealand women and girls summit for sport and active recreation, and the next summit will be held in October this year. The strategy also sets a gender diversity target of 40 percent for boards funded through Sport New Zealand; previously it has sat at 27 percent. Many boards are making progress towards this and we will receive a final report shortly on where we have reached.

💬 Ginny Andersen: What recent announcements have been made that will support the women and girls in sport strategy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The announcement last week that New Zealand and Australia have been confirmed as joint hosts for the 2023 FIFA Women’s World Cup is a significant boost for women’s sport. The Government has set aside up to $25 million to host the event. Of that, $14.2 million goes to New Zealand Football for direct support of the tournament. The remainder will ensure a seamless tournament is delivered. The opening match is proposed for Eden Park and a total of 29 matches are expected to be played in New Zealand with 35 to be played in Australia. This is one of the world’s major sporting events. It presents an amazing opportunity for us to grow female participation in sport, create new female leaders, and further raise the visibility of women’s sport in New Zealand and around the globe.

💬 Ginny Andersen: What other significant events will help increase leadership, participation, and value and visibility for women and girls in the sports sector?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The 2023 FIFA Women’s World Cup is the latest in a substantial line-up of international women’s events, each providing a platform for women and girls in sport and active recreation to be enhanced. The ICC Women’s Cricket World Cup 2021 is scheduled to be held from 6 February to 7 March, and the organisers have already begun developing a leverage and legacy plan with a strong focus on women in cricket at all levels. Likewise, the Women’s Rugby World Cup 2021 will be held in New Zealand in September and October. This also has a strong leverage and legacy plan under way. Off the pitch, New Zealand is currently the secretariat for the International Working Group on Women and Sport, the largest network on the globe dedicated to advancing sport by empowering women and girls, and we will be hosting the eighth International Working Group World Conference in 2022. Through all of these events, we have a tremendous platform for transformational change, and I am proud to work alongside so many passionate and willing partners who are committed to providing a lasting legacy for women and girls in sport and active recreation.

Question No. 9—Health

9. to the Minister of Health: How much of the $1.9 billion allocated for mental health and drug addiction services in Budget 2019 has been committed for mental health and addiction treatment services, and how much, if any, of that allocation to mental health and addiction treatment services has been spent to date?

Of the $1.9 billion, around $1 billion is allocated to Vote Health services. Of the $150 million of Vote Health funding from the Budget 2019 mental health and wellbeing package that was available in 2019-20, approximately $125 million of that funding has been committed. As at the end of May 2020, of this $125 million, around $110 million has been spent.

💬 Matt Doocey: In light of that answer, when the Government’s own mental health inquiry indicative target is to increase access to mental health and addiction services from 3 percent to 20 percent of the population, what increased level of access is he expecting to deliver from the stated $125 million spent to date?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government’s always been very clear that the funding allocated is for a four-year programme of work, that the spending profile of that is the smallest in the first year, and that it increases as additional capability and capacity is developed. Some of the big investments early on in the programme are around workforce development, for example. We can’t provide better front-line services to New Zealanders if we don’t have the workforce to be able to deliver that. So there is a heavy emphasis on that at the moment. But there are already improvements happening across a whole variety of initiatives. I’ve got about 20 or 30 of them listed in front of me, and, if the member wants to ask me about any specific one of them, I’ll give it my best crack at answering it.

💬 Matt Doocey: In light of the answer of the roll-out of four years, after that four-year programme, if the Minister is going to spend $1 billion, what level of service is he expecting to deliver within that frame from the mental health inquiry of 3 percent to 20 percent?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It’s interesting that the member’s given up on the next election already. Of course, the overall level of funding will depend on who the Government is, and on this side of the House we’ll let our record speak for itself.

💬 Matt Doocey: The question was: under his own forecasting, when he allocated $1 billion to a four-year roll-out, if his own mental health inquiry said access needed to increase from 3 percent to 20 percent, what level of access is he expecting to reach after spending $1 billion after four years?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course, we’ll get as close to that as we can.

💬 Matt Doocey: In light of the previous Minister’s answers and challenge to talk about one specific service, why, when asked written question No. 10111, “How much, if any, of the $8 million invested over four years for improving responses for up to 15,000 people a year who turn up at hospital emergency departments needing mental health support announced in Budget 2019,” has not one dollar been spent to date delivering that service?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member wants an answer that specific regarding a written parliamentary question and answer given by the previous Minister of Health, I suggest he puts that down, and I’d be happy to come back to him.

Question No. 10—Housing

10. to the Minister of Housing: Have any developers undertaking construction of market homes approached the Government for an indemnity or underwrite that would provide additional financial assurance to their banks, and, if approaches of this sort have been made, what steps has the Government taken to ensure it applies fair and transparent criteria to assessing or granting these applications?

Yes. As I’m sure the member is aware, the main mechanism under building the KiwiBuild programme is the underwrite provided to a developer for the KiwiBuild homes that are included in their housing projects. These projects will include market homes. There are well-documented, detailed, and well-established processes for these underwrites, which I don’t propose to canvass in detail here, but I am satisfied with the due diligence that is undertaken.

💬 Nicola Willis: Can she confirm that on 20 May this year, she was advised of a request by a private developer for a Crown underwrite for the construction of 49 open-market homes, and, if so, on what date did she agree to provide a Crown guarantee of $21 million for those market properties?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I don’t have the specific dates, but I have confirmed to that member, in answer to written parliamentary questions, that an underwrite was received for the Monark development—a request for further underwrite—taking the underwrite from $19 million to $40 million, and, as has been well canvassed in this House on multiple occasions, that’s because this development was in a category of one. It was a development where a substantial number of KiwiBuild properties had been sold prior to there being a financing and construction agreement in place—a practice that has not been undertaken since December of last year.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does the Minister stand by her statement that without this Crown guarantee for the Monark project, “further delays would have risked the homes not being built”; if so, will the Crown provide financial guarantees to other private developments where there is a risk that homes will not be built?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I have consistently reminded this member, this was a development that was in a category of one. So when it came to assessing whether or not to extend the underwrite to the further properties, we only had to consider all of the properties in that category, and that was one. I am confused by that member. Is she now saying she supports the underwrite? Is it now her party’s policy to continue this practice?

💬 Nicola Willis: Did the Minister have any input into the decision to exclude residential property development and investment projects from the Government’s business finance guarantee scheme, and can she explain why they were excluded?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In answer to the first part of the question, no.

💬 Nicola Willis: Is it fair that the Monark development, in a category of one, received a $21 million Crown finance guarantee for 49 market homes, when hundreds of other residential property developers across the country may want a Crown guarantee but have no way of getting one?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Apart from looking forward to seeing the fully costed National Party policy to extend this underwrite guarantee to the hundreds of developers across the country, which is clearly a move from the position of opposing any underwrites under KiwiBuild, I am satisfied, and what I would like to remind that member is that there were two unsold market homes in that development. If the underwrite needs to be exercised on those two market homes, the underwrite will only be exercised at the KiwiBuild cap. And what the member might like to know is that through her publicity for this particular development, while 10 people have cancelled their contracts, 29 have entered into expressions of interest. So while that member may be looking to crash property developments in Wellington, we on this side of the House are backing them.

Question No. 11—Justice

11. to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has he made regarding the Criminal Cases Review Commission?

Yesterday, I announced that the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) Te Kāhui Tātari Ture has started work and can now independently investigate claimed miscarriages of justice. The CCRC is an independent body that will review criminal convictions and sentences where there is a claimed miscarriage of justice. It can refer cases back to the Court of Appeal, but it does not determine guilt or innocence. The CCRC will replace the referral power currently exercised by the Governor-General under section 406 of the Crimes Act 1961, which is part of the royal prerogative of mercy process. The CCRC is headed by the Chief Commissioner, Colin Carruthers QC, and he leads a board made up of Deputy Chief Commissioner Paula Rose as well as Kingi Snelgar, Tangi Utikere, Nigel Hampton QC, Professor Tracey McIntosh, and Dr Virginia Hope. The commission is based in Hamilton in order to demonstrate its independence from the traditional Government and judicial centres of Auckland and Wellington.

💬 Greg O’Connor: Why is the Criminal Cases Review Commission important?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Even though we have appeal rights and safeguards against unsafe convictions in this country, from time to time our justice system, frankly, gets things wrong. The design of the CCRC is based on international best practice and is an important safety valve against wrongful convictions. Anyone who believes they’ve been wrongfully convicted or sentenced can now apply to the CCRC for a review of the case. The commission honours also a significant commitment in the 2017 Labour - New Zealand First coalition agreement, and it was very pleasing to see colleagues—in particular, the honourable Fletcher Tabuteau—at the event yesterday.

💬 Greg O’Connor: How will the Criminal Cases Review Commission improve our justice system?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Criminal Cases Review Commission will enable our justice system to address concerns expressed over a number of years about the independence, the timeliness, the quality, and the fairness of investigations into claimed miscarriages of justice. There will now be a dedicated resource, and it is likely that investigations into alleged miscarriages of justice will be conducted in a more timely way. The launch of the CCRC yesterday is a significant milestone in the development of New Zealand’s justice system.

Question No. 12—Corrections

12. to the Minister of Corrections: How many individuals sentenced to community service have had hours remitted to date under the Epidemic Preparedness (Epidemic Management—COVID-19—Parole Act 2002 and Sentencing Act 2002) Notice 2020, and how many hours were remitted under this notice?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. At various alert levels, community work was unable to take place. During this time, 10,745 people were subject to a sentence of community work, with more than half of these sentences imposed for traffic offences and non-payment of fines. Corrections identified 5,576 people who had demonstrated compliance with their sentences during the month prior to lockdown and remitted on average between four to seven hours a week of community work per offender from 23 March to 5 June. This was in line with Section 67A of the Sentencing Act 2002.

💬 Simeon Brown: How many times did the Department of Corrections use the alternative power in the epidemic notice to extend the time frame in which someone could complete their court-imposed community service and sentence instead of simply remitting hours of community service?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Extending hours would have disadvantaged individuals for something outside of their control. It would have also created a backlog of hours for community Corrections to manage, with associated health and safety risks. And, of course, the health and safety of our Corrections staff is our top priority. The length of the lockdown period was unknown at the time these decisions were made.

💬 Simeon Brown: So why did he tell the House on 4 June 2020, “the situation was made so that they could do their hours post-lockdown.”, when, instead, hours were simply taken off their court-imposed sentence?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: In accordance with the provisions of the notice, people who had community work hours remitted are still to be required to complete a significant portion of the hours that they had been sentenced to, which can be up to 400 hours per person.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying that it would’ve been totally unfair to expect someone in lockdown 3 and 4 to leave their home when they could not, because of the rules, and go out and do community service—that that simple proposition is totally unjustified?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, it was totally impossible for people to leave their homes in lockdown alert levels 4 and 3, so what I said in my previous answer was that we would have disadvantaged people for something that was totally out of their control.

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: Given the Minister has successfully reduced the prison population by over 13 percent, can he confirm that the crime rate has remained relatively stable, meaning that this Government has successfully reduced the prison population while keeping Kiwis and communities safe?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I can confirm that there are fewer people in prison. There are also fewer offenders in the community, at the same time that the crime rate has continued to plateau. So what this Government has done is made New Zealand a safer country in the few short years that we’ve been in power.