Oral Questions

1. to the Prime Minister: Does she consider a $195,000 increase in the price of the median house since October 2017 a sign of a Government that is “absolutely committed to resolving the housing crisis and taking a multitude of steps and levers to make that happen”, as she stated in her speech in the 2017 Address in Reply debate?

Like many New Zealanders, I am concerned by increasing house prices, which is why we as a Government are absolutely committed to making progress on housing. I take as a sign of that commitment the fact that since 2017 there has been record new home construction, with 37,725 new homes over the last year. First-home buyers are 25 percent of purchasers in the third quarter of 2020, the highest levels since CoreLogic’s series began in 2005. Since 2017, we stopped National’s sell-off of State homes, and we added 6,000 new public homes in the last three years. We developed the National Policy Statement on Urban Development to substantially increase development capacity—as much as 40 percent in some local authorities. We established a progressive homeownership scheme, increased the First Home Grant, made the First Home Loan scheme more accessible, and, of course, started KiwiBuild. We passed the healthy homes standards and introduced fairer tenancy laws. But we also acknowledge there is more to do.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Is she aware that her three-year increase of $195,000 is a greater increase than was experienced over the entire nine years of the last National Government?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I reflect the fact that in the last month—in the last month alone—we’ve seen significant increases. Before September, we were looking at an annualised increase, according to CoreLogic, of roughly 4 percent; under the last National Government, it was 9 percent. But what you will not hear from this Government is any acceptance that escalating house prices at that rate are acceptable, and that is the most significant difference between a Labour Government and a National-led Government.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does she consider her policy of extending the brightline test from two years to five years has been successful in reining in house prices?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, firstly I’d say that I can only assume that the motivation of the National Government at the time in introducing it was for that purpose. We do not, as yet, have the advice from officials to tell us whether or not it has contributed to what we were seeing around speculators buying and flicking houses, but we have asked for that advice, and I’m sure we’ll be sharing it in good time.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does she now, three years after extending the brightline test from three years to five years, think that the answer to house price growth is a further extension of the brightline test?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I acknowledge that, actually, the extension of the brightline test—I can’t ascertain from the member’s question whether she supports the existence of it or not, given it was her Government that introduced it—was never the only thing that we did. We banned foreign buyers in our residential housing market. We closed tax loopholes. We, for instance, have recognised in an economic downturn—unlike the last National Government during the global financial crisis, where we saw housing construction halve, we have created an underwrite scheme to try to keep that development going. We have never ever focused on one single response, because if there was one single answer, someone would have resolved this underlying issue by now. We, however, at least in the last term started to make headway.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does she believe it would be fair to say that increasing the brightline test a second time is doing the same thing expecting, somehow, a different result in house prices?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The very reason we have asked for analysis in this area is because we are exploring every opportunity to try to stabilise the housing market in this current environment. Again, I notice the member is raising that one example, because, to be honest, it was about the only thing that the National Government did in office to make the situation better. They did plenty of things to make it worse.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does she agree with the Governor of the Reserve Bank that “High house prices … largely reflect structural and regulatory issues … In particular, land use restrictions, such as urban planning rules”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, that is the reason that we, of course, developed and introduced the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, which is focused on making sure that local government are obliged to release land for population growth. It also means that we will see greater intensification along transport routes. We want decent planning for new housing. We also don’t want to see those escalating land prices based on what we have had around urban metropolitan limits.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: With all the things that the Prime Minister’s listed today as the actions that she’s taken in relation to housing and house prices, why is it that house prices have risen so much more under her watch than under the nine years of a National Government?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Firstly, I reject the premise of that question. Secondly, again, it was only several months ago we were talking about a potential crash in the housing market. We are now looking globally at a significant issue in house prices. I refer the member to two articles, one listing that “Low interest rates and changing preferences explain housing’s strength during the pandemic”—that’s an article on the international situation around housing—and also “Monetary policy, fiscal measures, and buyer preferences explain the unlikely boom”: “Why, despite the coronavirus pandemic, house prices continue to rise”. This is an Economist article about the global situation, not just New Zealand.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Point of order. I seek leave to table a report from the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand showing the house price increase under the current Government as compared to the previous one.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Question No. 2—Finance

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

Today, ASB have produced their quarterly economic forecast for New Zealand, entitled A demonstration of resilience. It states that they now expect that the economic decline as a consequence of COVID-19 to be “around half the decline we anticipated”. They state that this reflects the level of Government support, the quick exit from lockdown, and continued consumer spending. As ASB has put it, “Fear of losing jobs has quickly given way to fear of missing out on a bargain or some fun.” Their quarterly report also states, “[New Zealand’s] economic activity bounced back remarkably quickly once alert level restrictions were gradually eased through May and June, and by July the [New Zealand] economy almost felt like business as usual.” While there are many New Zealanders who continue to struggle with the impacts of COVID-19, the New Zealand economy is recovering.

💬 Greg O’Connor: Has the Minister seen any reports on small-business activity?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, yes, I have. I’ve seen data from Xero’s Small Business Insights report, that analyses trends from small businesses across New Zealand. Their latest data shows the number of jobs in small businesses across Aotearoa grew 1.4 percent during the month and they’re now above pre-crisis levels. Craig Hudson from Xero noted that “With the exception of hospitality, jobs in all industries across the country have recovered to, at or above pre-crisis levels. The manufacturing and retail industries in particular have seen good recovery during the month.”

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is he concerned by reports from Westpac chief economist Dominick Stephens that suggest putting up the top tax rate to 39 percent without implementing a capital gains tax will further increase house prices and thereby inequality?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve seen a range of views on that matter, including from Dominick Stephens. What I can say is that on this side of the House, we believe that it is the right measure to see those who earn the most in our economy pay a little bit more to ensure that we can go on with our COVID recovery and continue to provide health and education services.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Has he seen data from the OECD that house price increase over the past year in New Zealand has been many times higher than in comparable countries that also happen to have capital gains taxes or other types of asset taxes?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, I’ve actually seen conflicting advice on that matter, particularly in terms of recent months.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: Can he confirm that during this term of Government there will be no other changes to tax beyond the new 39 percent personal income tax rate?

As has occurred under every Government, Inland Revenue makes constant changes to tax, including whether it’s updating their own systems or making the tax system more accessible, easier to navigate, or fairer for taxpayers. In the last term of Government, this included 1.4 million automatic tax refunds, lifts to thresholds for provisional tax, depreciation deductions on non-residential buildings, and loss carry-back and loss continuity policies. I am somewhat surprised that the member would not want tax changes that make it easier for taxpayers—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member’s answer was, first of all, longer than necessary and, second, went into an area a long way away from an area he’s responsible for. The member is not responsible for Mr Bayly.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Will he rule out increasing the trust tax rate during this term of Government?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we stated during the election campaign, we will not be increasing the trust rate as part of the piece of legislation that is before the House, but, as we said at the time—as we said at the time—if we see evidence of people misusing trusts, we will act on that.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Does he agree with the revenue Minister’s comment yesterday that David Parker would consider increasing the tax rate on trustee income?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to ask the member to quote accurately. I can’t believe that David Parker would have said that.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Are you saying—I wasn’t giving a direct quote—

💬 SPEAKER: Yes.

💬 Andrew Bayly: And you’re saying I need to?

💬 SPEAKER: Yes. Well, if the member is quoting, he’s got to quote accurately, and, while David Parker makes unusual comments, I don’t think he ever says it, “David Parker said this …”

💬 Andrew Bayly: So does he agree with the revenue Minister’s comment yesterday that he would consider increasing the tax rate on trustee income?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In my last answer, I just said, if we see evidence that trusts are being misused, then, yes, we would consider that. That’s exactly what we said in the election campaign.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Why is he seeking advice on possible tax changes when he has categorically ruled out making any changes?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What we sought advice from Treasury on is what we can do to dampen the excessive demand in the housing market. That is what a responsible Government does.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Would he consider it to be a broken promise if he were to increase other tax rates, considering the Government has promised that there will be no other changes to tax beyond the new 39 percent income tax rate?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The premise of the member’s question is completely incorrect.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Point of order. Could I ask for elaboration because—

💬 SPEAKER: The member can—it’s a question. [Interruption] Hang on, the member has asked, can he ask for an elaboration. The answer is yes; he’s just got to ask for it.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Can the Minister further elaborate on what he means by that statement?

💬 SPEAKER: Probably “will” the Minister rather than “can”.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I certainly can, and just to pick one example in the tax policy that the Government is implementing, we actually want to make sure that multinationals pay their fair share. Apparently the opposite side doesn’t care about that.

Question No. 4—Energy and Resources

4. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What action is the Government taking to reduce fossil fuel use by large industrial users?

Last month, I joined the Prime Minister to announce the launch of the first round of the Government investment in the Decarbonising Industry Fund. The Government recognises the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from process heat, and the introduction of this fund represents a win for our climate and a win for our recovery. The fund operates as a partnership between the Government and business to accelerate the decarbonisation of industrial process heat and thermal energy used to manufacture products in industry. Process heat makes up around a quarter of New Zealand’s energy-related emissions and over 50 percent of process heat is fossil fuelled, mainly by gas and coal. This fund will be key to reducing those emissions in the years ahead. The $70 million new fund will allow businesses to invest in energy efficiency, the application of innovative technologies, and fuel switching, with the ultimate goal of accelerating decarbonisation through the lowering of emissions.

💬 Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Why is it important to decarbonise industrial users in New Zealand?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: For New Zealand to achieve its ambitious climate goals, we need to tackle the issue of emissions from our large industrial users. The interim Climate Change Commission recommended a focus on lowering emissions from process heat as a priority for decarbonising our economy as we continue our transition to a low-emissions future. The fund would be used for upgrading transmission or distribution network connections which would facilitate the electrification of industrial process heat to enable the deployment of energy efficiency and electrification technologies in industry. By targeting process heat produced by New Zealand’s largest energy users, we can accelerate the uptake of electrification and other technologies that will dramatically lower emissions and bring with it the benefit of clean-energy jobs.

💬 SPEAKER: Question No. 5—

💬 Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Pātai tāpiri.

💬 SPEAKER: Just to make it clear, the first answer was far too long. The second answer answered the question in about the first 20 words and the rest of them answered a whole pile of other questions, which were not asked. I think the member has had her time.

Question No. 5—COVID-19 Response

5. to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Why has the report of the COVID-19 Surveillance and Testing Strategy Group not been considered by Cabinet yet, and what is his best estimate for when the report will be made public?

In answer to the first part of the question, because my office only received the final draft of the report last week. In answer to the second part of the question, the release of the report will depend on the decisions that Cabinet takes in response to it.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why did he say on 3 November, then, “Obviously we needed a chance to digest that and consider it, and in this post-election period, that is what we are doing and we will certainly be releasing it.”, when he says he only received the report last week?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I did receive earlier drafts, and I made it clear when I received the earlier drafts. I asked the review panel to go and consult with the Ministry of Health before the report was finalised, and they did that.

💬 Chris Bishop: Have all recommendations of the report, even if they were in earlier draft versions of the report, that were received by him been implemented?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, not yet. Those are some of the things that Cabinet has to make decisions on.

💬 Chris Bishop: How many recommendations did the report make, and which of the recommendations does he consider to be the most pressing and urgent to implement?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The report concluded overall that the testing that Cabinet had mandated was being undertaken. They made some recommendations around how the reporting and monitoring of the testing could be improved. Obviously, people are affected by that; therefore, I asked them to consult with the people who are most affected, including the Ministry of Health, which they have now done. Cabinet has not had a chance to consider the report and to consider the decisions that it may take. Given that there will be people who will be affected by that, the member will understand that I’m not going to go into great detail about that until Cabinet’s had a chance to make decisions.

💬 Chris Bishop: Is it his expectation that Cabinet will consider the final report received by him before the end of the year, and, if so, when can the public expect the recommendations of the report to be implemented in the new year?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, as I indicated in my primary answer, release of information around that will depend on the decisions that Cabinet takes.

Question No. 6—Education

6. to the Minister of Education: What steps is the Government taking to ensure that school students are able to learn in warm, dry, and modern classrooms?

The election delivered a clear mandate to accelerate our economic recovery and build back better, and part of that is prioritising construction projects in schools. Around 7,500 students are set to benefit from the Government’s latest investment of $164 million to build new classrooms and upgrade schools around the country. I am very proud of the work that we are doing to lift the quality of the classrooms that our students and our teachers spend so much time in.

💬 Jo Luxton: Will this investment have any impact on employment opportunities for New Zealanders?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes. The package will help to create and sustain more than 3,000 jobs. The Ministry of Education and schools will be engaging with local builders, plumbers, carpenters, roofers, electricians, and other local businesses throughout this process. This investment in schools is backed up by our plan to make training opportunities more readily available as well.

💬 Jo Luxton: Can he identify the schools that will benefit from this investment in the North Island?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I can, and there’s heaps of them, but I’ll name just a few, including Greytown School in Wairarapa, where I announced the package, who are having a 100-year-old five-classroom block replaced, and they’re getting four additional classrooms; Ormiston Primary School; Kauri Flats School; Browns Bay School—to name just a few.

💬 Jo Luxton: Can he identify schools that will benefit from this investment in the South Island?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Once again, there’s plenty, but I’ll just name one, which is that we are going to be building a new primary school in Rolleston East.

Question No. 7—Climate Change

7. to the Minister of Climate Change: Will New Zealand fulfil all of its obligations under the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and achieve its 2030 target to reduce emissions by 30 percent below 2005 levels?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ll answer the first part of the question in a minute. I wanted to say first that—in reference to the second part of the question—there are a number of ways to achieve that target. The first is that we would reduce our domestic emissions; the second is to draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in the form of forestry; and the third is to use international units that have environmental integrity. This Government is absolutely committed to achieving that target, as was the previous National Government that set the target in the first place. In answer to the first part of the question, there are four primary obligations under the Paris Agreement. They are to have a nationally determined contribution (NDC) and to report progress towards it—we do have a nationally determined contribution and we are regularly reporting progress towards it. I’ve also asked the Climate Change Commission for advice on whether the existing NDC is consistent with the 1½ degree pathway, and that may lead to a revision to the NDC next year. The second obligation is to make and carry out plans to adapt to the effects of climate change. We have recently published a national climate change risk assessment. We’re developing in response to that a national adaptation plan, and I intend to introduce an adaptation bill into the House in the term of this Parliament. The third obligation is that, as a developed country, we should provide finance to assist developing countries both with mitigation and adaptation. New Zealand has committed to delivering at least $300 million in climate-related support from 2019 to 2022, and we are well on track to meeting that commitment.

💬 Stuart Smith: Does he agree with James Shaw, leader of the Green Party, when he said, “Using international units was a costly way of buying our way out of our obligations”; and if so, will we meet our 2030 target without using international credits?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: Yes, I do. The previous Government, when they set up the nationally determined contribution in 2016, modelled that up to 85 percent of a nationally determined contribution would be met with offshore units. And, of course, the member will remember that at the time there was also some controversy about the fact that there were what was known as dodgy hot air units floating around inside the New Zealand system as a result of changes to the emissions trading scheme that that Government had introduced. In fact, most of the work that this Government did in the last term on the emissions trading scheme was designed to ensure that that could never happen again. It is our intention to meet the target to the maximum extent by domestic action. When the NDC was introduced, there was a shortfall of 200 million tonnes of greenhouse gases that would have to be met offshore. We’ve managed to lower that, according to the most recent projections, to a gap of about 106 million tonnes, and we will be introducing further policies next year to reduce that gap even further.

💬 Stuart Smith: Does he agree with James Shaw, leader of the Green Party, when he said New Zealand’s Paris target was “woefully inadequate”; and if so, will he submit a new target, as requested of all parties, by the end of 2020?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: I did ask the Climate Change Commission for advice on whether our nationally determined contribution is consistent with a pathway for keeping under 1½ degrees of global warming above pre-industrial levels. The reason I ask that is because I agree with James Shaw, the co-leader of the Green Party, about the inadequacy. But we do want to take the best scientific and economic advice that we have on that. Unfortunately, because we were only able to set up the commission a year ago, that advice won’t be available to us until May of next year; so we won’t be submitting a new NDC at the end of this year. But if there is a revision as a result of the advice, then that will be lodged before COP 26 in Glasgow next year.

💬 Stuart Smith: Why, after three years in Government, if he believes our target is not ambitious enough, has he not increased it; and why doesn’t he have New Zealand on track to meet its existing target?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, we have had a lot of work to do to repair the damage that was caused by the previous National Government in their nine years in office, because we had—that Government, when it lodged that target, had absolutely no plan to achieve that target, and I would imagine a little later on today we’re going to hear a great deal from the Opposition about empty statements and commitments with no action behind it. And I would just ask the members of the Opposition to reflect on what they did to meet the target that they set, because the answer to that is absolutely nothing.

💬 Stuart Smith: Is the declaration of a climate change emergency a last-gasp attempt to be invited to the UN top table on climate in Glasgow?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, my understanding is that we have actually received an invitation and the Prime Minister is considering a response.

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: Does the Minister, in terms of decarbonising our society, support a wood-first building policy for State sector construction, and will he be encouraging the private sector to follow suit, especially if they want State sector tenants?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, my understanding is that Cabinet has recently committed to ensuring that Government buildings are built, to the maximum extent possible, out of the most sustainable materials available. Of course, as we well know, wood is one of the most—if not the most—sustainable building materials available at the moment.

Question No. 8—Transport

8. to the Minister of Transport: What progress has been made on the Auckland Transport Alignment Project?

I’m pleased to report progress has been made on the Auckland Transport Alignment Project as part of our Government’s plans to deliver better transport outcomes in our biggest city. On Monday, the upgraded Ōtāhuhu Station was formally unveiled. This $50 million investment in the city’s transport network includes construction of a third platform and passenger access at the station, 1.3 kilometres of new track alongside KiwiRail’s Southern Line, four new crossovers to allow trains to switch between tracks, signals, and a new overhead line to power trains. I note that one of the advances that the current Government has made over and above the previous Government is that we’ve actually funded the Auckland Transport Alignment Project.

💬 Shanan Halbert: How will these upgrades improve public transport in Auckland?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: These upgrades are critical and will provide additional capacity to allow trains to run more often and faster when the City Rail Link (CRL) opens in 2024. Together, along with New Zealand Upgrade Programme projects like the third main line, it will allow us to double the capacity of Auckland’s rail network. For commuters, it has the potential to slash their commute time to the central city in half. For example, from Ōtāhuhu to Britomart, it can be 30 to 40 minutes; after the CRL, it will be around 20 to 30 minutes. Ellerslie to K Road will go from 36 minutes, currently, to 17 minutes, approximately.

💬 Shanan Halbert: What other progress has been made on the Auckland Transport Alignment Project?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Good news: a number of projects have progressed. Some recently completed projects include, in Ōtara, safety upgrades, including a new roundabout at the entry of Hayman Street and new pedestrian islands; at the notoriously dangerous Dairy Flat Highway / Coatesville-Riverhead Highway intersection, a new $10 million roundabout, right-turn bays, centre median safety barriers, side barriers, and intersection upgrades; pleasingly, in Mount Roskill, a safer communities project, including new footpaths, speed tables, as well as 11 raised pedestrian crossings that will help kids to cross the road more safely; on Waiheke, the first electric buses have been rolled out; and construction continues on job-creating projects like the Eastern Busway, State Highway 20B improvements, the Puhinui interchange, Old Māngere Bridge replacement—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Enough.

Question No. 9—Housing

9. to the Minister of Housing: How many motels, if any, has the Government purchased or leased in the past three years for public housing purposes, and how much does the Government currently spend per day on motel accommodation for people in housing need?

This Government has made a firm commitment to ensuring all New Zealanders have a warm, dry home. We are rebuilding the State housing sector with new public and transitional housing, and while this happens, we use motels as interim accommodation for people who would otherwise be sleeping rough, in campgrounds, and overcrowded situations. Between 2018 and 2020, three motels were purchased for use as transitional housing. The Ministry of Housing and Urban Development also has one direct leasing project. Through Vote Housing and Urban Development this Government spends approximately $142,761.75 for 924 contracted transitional housing motel units. I am proud of the work that this Government did to ensure that we tackled homelessness during the COVID-19 lockdown, and we still have 1,067 motel units supporting people identified as homeless during that lockdown period. Their approximate spend is $154,715 per day for these motel units. However, this is not our long-term plan. Our Government has a plan to move people out of homelessness and motels and into publicly owned, fit for purpose transitional housing. When we came into Government there were—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member has answered the question.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does the Government have any plans to purchase more motels for use as public housing?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Our plan to address the housing crisis is to only ever purchase motel units if they make the best housing solution sense. We are only using purchased motels where they are gutted, they are refitted, and they are fit for purpose for people to live in. And the ones that we have purchased—for example, I don’t want to see families unable to send their kids to school with a lunch because a motel unit only has a beer fridge and a family cannot budget through that. So, we will only buy motels when it makes good housing sense.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does the Government have plans to purchase more motel units for public housing?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think the member is getting confused between transitional and public housing. These are two quite separate things. Transitional housing is sometimes done through motel units. It is not our preference to do that. And—if I had completed my answer—when we came into Government, there were 1,718 transitional places, of which there were 293 motel units left by the previous Government. There are now 3,653 transitional housing spaces. We have funded through each of our Budgets permanent, publicly owned transitional houses which are fit for purpose for families to make their lives in. That is our preference—not motels—for kids to grow up in.

💬 Nicola Willis: Is it correct, as reported, that the Government has renewed an attempt to buy up freehold titles to motels across the country for public housing?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Of course, the purchase of motels for public housing was not new. While we have purchased three during our time in Government, in a six-month period between 2016 and June 2017, the previous Government purchased four. Our intent is actually to add to the housing supply by adding long-term, publicly owned transitional homes. We will only purchase motels where they can be refurbished to be made sense into transitional housing spaces.

💬 Nicola Willis: Will the Minister rule out purchasing any more motel units for use as public housing; or is it her intention to continue spending an average of $154,000 per day housing New Zealanders in temporary motels?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: It is certainly not our intention to continue spending that money housing New Zealanders in motels. This is why we had commitments in Budget 2018, we had a commitment in Budget 2019, and we have had a commitment in Budget 2020 around finally funding transitional housing in a meaningful way in this country. The party that that member is a member of did not even start addressing homelessness till 2017, after nine years in Government. They need to hang their heads in shame.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does she agree with the Hon Grant Robertson’s reported comment that “we did end up having to use motels again, but we continue to want to move away from that.”; and if so, can she provide any evidence that the number of people living in motels has reduced since Labour came to power in 2017?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’ve always found it’s good practice to agree with the Minister of Finance, and of course we do want to move away from using motels, but what we will not tolerate on this side of the House is people living on the street and people living in cars. And that is why, during the COVID lockdown, we made it our business to make sure that everybody could shelter safely. So, if we’re faced with a choice between people living in cars or on the streets, we will do what is needed to give those New Zealanders a pathway to housing. But we are a Government that has shown a commitment to tackling homelessness. It is a pity the previous Government did not.

Question No. 10—Prime Minister

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

Yes, in particular the Government’s policy response to COVID-19, which supports our economic recovery while keeping New Zealanders safe. This includes our announcement this week to keep the business debt hibernation scheme open until 31 October 2021, our wage subsidy policy that supported around 1.7 million workers and 250,000 businesses, our small business cashflow scheme, our policy to invest in apprenticeships and workplace training, and delivering on our commitment to support workers with 10 days’ sick leave through the increasing sick leave amendment bill. New Zealand’s economy is recovering better than we expected, with GDP and unemployment exceeding expectations, but the impacts of this pandemic are far-reaching, and we continue to work to support businesses, employees, and keep New Zealanders safe.

💬 David Seymour: Does she also stand by a policy of reviewing the Pharmac model, with a view to changing its underlying legislation, as she and all party leaders promised on the campaign trail?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I stand by what I said on the campaign trail, which was to provide a forum for us to look at the Pharmac model. I didn’t give specifics beyond that, but that was intended to make sure that we are getting the best value and, of course, the best medication we can for New Zealanders in a system that has served us well and must continue to have separation from politicians, I think, to continue to be effective.

💬 David Seymour: Why did the Speech from the Throne mention the word “health” 13 times but “Pharmac” or “pharmaceuticals” never?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Look, there will be a raft of things that are part of core Government business that may not have been mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, but as I’ve just confirmed in my answer to the member’s supplementary question, I do intend to follow through on what I said prior to the election campaign. It’s something that I’ve already spoken to officials about.

💬 David Seymour: What conversations has the Prime Minister had with those officials, and did they give an indication of when the public might expect to see such a review completed?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, at this stage I can’t provide the member with a specific time line, but I have said that we need to instigate that work and it needs to be part of our Government work programme.

💬 David Seymour: How can people who have been saying on the steps of Parliament “We can’t wait.” have confidence that a review of Pharmac is a priority for her Government, having just watched her performance over the last few minutes?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: They will know that by the fact that we now have a Pharmac budget over a billion dollars, and that is because of the consecutive increases that we made to the Pharmac budget in the last term. What was put to me during the course of the election campaign were ongoing questions around, for instance, the transparency of Pharmac’s purchasing model and so on. I do want people to have confidence in a system that I believe, by and large, serves us very well. I believe looking into Pharmac in that regard should help bolster the confidence people can have, but I will always stand very strongly on the principle of political separation from pharmaceutical purchases.

💬 David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister promise that there will be legislative change to the statutes underpinning Pharmac this term of Government?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I will not pre-empt a piece of work that I have pledged to undertake by making any assumptions about what it will find.

Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

11. to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What is the Government doing to protect New Zealanders from unaffordable loans?

The Labour Government is committed to protecting Kiwis from high-cost loans and unaffordable debt. Last year, we got started by taking the bite out of loan sharks, and now we’re making the rules clearer for all lenders, to protect Kiwis from unaffordable loans. This morning, I announced new rules that will require all lenders to make the same detailed inquiries to understand people’s objectives and financial circumstances before approving a loan. The aim is to ensure borrowers are given only loans that are suitable for their needs and that consumers won’t be burdened with debt that they cannot afford to repay without significant hardship.

💬 Naisi Chen: How does this build on work to crack down on loan sharks?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I do want to acknowledge the work that my predecessor, Minister Faafoi, did to take the bite out of loan sharks by making changes to the credit contracts legislation, which put a cap on interest rates, a cost-of-credit cap on high-cost loans, and made sure that mobile traders comply with responsible lending rules. This is the next step, which creates specific requirements for all lenders. Before approving a loan, lenders must make consistent inquiries now about the borrower’s needs and objectives to help ensure the credit product is suitable, and they also need to verify the borrower’s income and expenses, to be satisfied that the repayments are unlikely to put the borrower into significant hardship.

💬 Naisi Chen: What difference will this make for people in vulnerable financial positions?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This morning, I heard from Sariah at the Newtown Budgeting and Advocacy Service, which sees hundreds of people each year in financial hardship due to unaffordable loans, and I heard some of the stories. During the consultation, in fact, previously we heard about many New Zealanders struggling with unaffordable loans, including the superannuitant who had got herself into debt through needing repairs to her car for her warrant of fitness. She’d taken out a loan with a private loan agency with a 26 percent interest rate. We also heard about a client who applied for a $1,000 consolidation loan but got offered $10,000, which he took, and he is now struggling to meet repayments. These new rules are about ensuring that situations like these are prevented from the start. It’s about having the right safeguards in place before Kiwis take out loans they cannot afford.

Question No. 12—Workplace Relations and Safety

12. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Will the advice he is seeking “to ensure that the Covid Leave Support Scheme is meeting its objectives” include whether the leave support scheme should be extended and expanded before the summer holiday period?

My focus is on working with other Ministers to ensure that the leave support scheme is working as effectively as possible to ensure people who need to self-isolate as a result of COVID-19 are supported. Ensuring the scheme is working effectively is a priority, and so if any changes are agreed upon, I’m sure that we will look to implement them as soon as possible, but I’m not imposing any arbitrary time lines on that.

💬 Jan Logie: Does he believe that, as a matter of workplace health and safety and general public health, everyone who displays COVID-19 - like symptoms should get a test and self-isolate while waiting for test results?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Yes. That is consistent with the health advice and the steps that we can all take to continue the elimination of COVID-19.

💬 Jan Logie: Is he aware that the COVID-19 Leave Support Scheme is very limited in coverage and doesn’t include most workers awaiting a test or test results; so the thousands of seasonal horticultural, retail, and hospitality workers employed this summer, who we’re all going to be engaging with, will have no financial support to stay home while experiencing COVID-19 - like symptoms?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Yes, I’m aware that the COVID Leave Support Scheme is not comprehensive. What I do note is that—and it’s important to clarify this—the scheme, effectively, is an income supplement to employers to support them in providing employees with adequate leave. The Government continues to encourage employers and employees to work together effectively so that people stay away from work when they are sick, and one of the reasons that we are continuing to review the scheme is to make sure that we’re providing support where appropriate.

💬 Jan Logie: Does the Minister recognise the workplace health and safety and public health risk of a significant proportion of the workforce not having guaranteed access to paid sick leave during a pandemic?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I believe and the Government believes that adequate paid sick leave is an important part of our system in ensuring that people are kept safe and that we stop the spreading of bugs and infections in the workplace. That’s one of the reasons why the Government’s moved to extend paid sick leave in the House today.

💬 Jan Logie: Why have these changes not happened already, when we’ve experienced already a workplace-related cluster resulting in our largest city moving to alert level 3?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I’m in my first month as Minister in this portfolio, and I’ve already asked for advice—

💬 Chris Bishop: You’re not doing very well.

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: —so that I can work with other Ministers to ensure that the scheme is working as effectively as possible.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’d prefer no comments on my performance, thank you, Mr Bishop.