Oral Questions

1. to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s statements and actions related to the COVID-19 response?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, in the context in which they were made and undertaken.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Does she agree with the Deputy Auditor-General, who said, in relation to the Government’s spending on COVID-19, we only have a partial picture?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, I, broadly speaking, agree with the Auditor-General that we should do as much as possible to be able to show what the spending under the COVID response and recovery fund is and how the progress is tracking on it. What the Auditor-General has acknowledged in their report is that the systems that this Parliament uses to track spending may not be fully appropriate when we have a crisis situation like COVID-19 and a very large response delivered very quickly. The Minister of Finance is working through with Treasury how best to respond to the Auditor-General’s report.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Will her Government, then, produce quarterly reports on COVID-19 response spending, as recommended by the Office of the Auditor-General, and, if so, will that start this quarter?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, I’m informed by the Minister of Finance that he is discussing exactly that with Treasury at the moment, as to what is possible in that regard. But in terms of the overall report by the Auditor-General, we certainly accept that when we have a crisis situation that requires such a large response, Parliament’s normal financial processes, which are being followed with respect to COVID-19 expenditure, may not be enough.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Will those discussions also include a commitment to publishing a detailed account of all COVID-19 spending, similar to the UK, which has a dedicated online COVID-19 cost tracker website?

We are prepared to look at all options to ensure that New Zealanders can have confidence that the very large amount of money that has been put aside to respond to COVID-19 is being well spent and to be able to track that. New Zealand does have a very robust system of public accounting, but it does rely on the financial review process, which members will be very familiar with because they’re going through it now. We will look to see what we can do to further provide information on this. I would note that throughout the period of the COVID-19 expenditure, we went through a number of processes here in the House where we identified what that expenditure was, and you will be seeing reports about that from various agencies over the coming months.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Does she agree, then, with the Auditor-General that future generations will likely inherit significantly more public debt as a result of the current spending on the COVID-19 response, and that current and future generations will want to know where the money has gone?

I certainly accept the fact that in responding to a one-in-100-year economic shock, the Government was required to take on more debt. At the time, that was certainly supported by the Opposition. We have in our mind a situation where we were unsure and uncertain, as the rest of the world was, as to the full impact. We moved decisively and swiftly to ensure that New Zealanders’ lives and livelihoods were protected, and I’m proud of that response.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Will she commit to releasing a detailed breakdown of the spending and jobs created from the 1.2 billion Jobs for Nature programme, which is part of the COVID-19 response?

Absolutely, and in fact yesterday in the House I heard the Hon Kiri Allan begin to give exactly what the Minister was asking for; unfortunately, she went outside of the Speaker’s tolerance for that.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Why did her Government wait until 18 December last year, well after the House rose for the year, to release the Roche-Simpson report into the COVID-19 response, when her Government received a draft in September and the final version on 27 November?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, the member is better off directing that question to the Minister concerned, but it was released. It has been very strongly publicly debated.

💬 SPEAKER: Question No.—

💬 Hon Member: Ha, ha! That’s hilarious.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member doesn’t interrupt me when I’m calling another member.

Question No. 2—Energy and Resources

2. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What recent announcements has she made about the Low Emission Vehicles Contestable Fund?

Yesterday, I was at the Johnsonville Waitohi community centre to announce the projects the Government is supporting through the ninth round of the Low Emission Vehicles Contestable Fund. The fund will contribute $3.7 million to projects, with the 22 recipients contributing a total of $9.4 million. Projects include a community electric bike and car-share scheme, additional electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, as well as five hydrogen trucks and a demonstration electric truck. We are getting on with the work needed to electrify our vehicle fleet, and this fund will continue to support innovative projects that help clean up our transport system.

💬 Tangi Utikere: How has the Low Emission Vehicles Contestable Fund supported low-emissions vehicles to date?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We recognise that innovative solutions and investments in our charging infrastructure are of utmost importance if we are to scale up the electrification of our transport fleet. For example, in this round, the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust has received funding to secure e-bike storage for a community bike share for its tenants and two second-hand Nissan LEAFs for a community car-share scheme. Hyundai will receive almost $500,000 of funding in this round for demonstrating and proving the potential of hydrogen-powered trucks. Through the life of the fund, we have co-funded 600 public EV chargers through the Low Emission Vehicles Contestable Fund across the country, which has helped meet our goal of having EV charging stations for 95 percent of every 75 kilometres of State highway.

💬 Tangi Utikere: How do these projects support New Zealand meeting our climate change goals?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Climate Change Commission’s recently released draft report rightly points out that reducing transport emissions is integral to meeting our climate change goals. In particular, demonstrating and providing potential for electric and hydrogen heavy vehicles is important, as heavy freight has an outside impact on transport emissions. The spread of projects, as announced yesterday, shows the numbers of opportunities present within the transport sector to reduce emissions, and we are committed to investing in our transition to a transport fleet to run on renewable electricity.

💬 Barbara Kuriger: Does the Minister expect the fund to do better than the Government’s progress, given that just 108 electric vehicles for its own fleet out of 15,000 meant by 2025 have been delivered?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The purpose of this fund is to make sure that we have the infrastructure for the electrification of our fleet. One of the things that I can point the member to is the fact that we do now have in 95 percent of our State highway network a charge infrastructure every 75 kilometres. We need to continue to make progress on the electrification of the fleet, and that does include the Government.

Question No. 3—Local Government

3. to the Minister of Local Government: Does she still agree with the statement, “Labour will ensure that major decisions about local democracy involve full participation of the local population from the outset”; if so, is she satisfied that the public consultation process on the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill is consistent with that statement?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, I do, and can I reiterate to the member that the reason for the truncated process is that this is a short-term fix so changes can be made in time for the 2022 local body elections. Locally elected representatives will be able to make the decision.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: What is her response to the statements in the New Zealand Herald today on her bill that it is the worst way to make law and that “It reeks of arrogance.”?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I disagree with that particular statement, but I see what the member is doing with his dog whistle. This issue has been around for a very long time, and in fact—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’ll ask the member to resume her seat. I just want to think very carefully about the use of the term “dog whistle” within the House. I think there are implications that flow from that which are not parliamentary. It’s something that I want to consider carefully, and in the interim I’ll ask her not to use that term until I’ve thought about it and taken advice.

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I disagree with that particular statement. This issue has been around for a very long time. Many communities have had very thorough conversations about the merits of having Māori wards within their council. The principle of democracy in terms of one person, one vote will still apply. The way in which Māori wards will be determined in so far as the formula will still remain the same. What we’re trying to achieve is the ability to remove the discriminatory barrier—through a truncated process, albeit—in time for the 2022 local body elections.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does calling for submissions one day and requiring they be submitted by 5 p.m. the next meet the legal consultation requirements of the Local Government Act applying to councils?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The timing of the select committee submissions is not the Minister’s responsibility.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point of order.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: Which one? Dr Nick Smith.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: My question was not specifically to the issue of the timetable that the Māori Affairs Committee has set; it was a question quite specifically—because what we have is the Government putting a requirement on councils—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. The timing the member used was exactly that of the select committee. It was not a general consultation question that is before the House; it is a bill. Michael Woodhouse.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: So, speaking to that point—

💬 SPEAKER: Oh, sorry—

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Away you go—away you go, Gerry.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s an interesting ruling, but it is the Minister who sets the report-back date for the bill, effectively setting the timetable.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the member has been here for a very long time. He knows that when the House votes, it’s not the Minister; it’s the House.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point of order, Mr Speaker—which was going to be my original one—that is true, and this Parliament decides, ultimately, on the report-back date. But the request and the motion was put by the very Minister who is now being questioned, so surely that makes Dr Smith’s question in order.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I can understand exactly what the member means, but it is, in the end, because this House has passed a motion, no longer a matter for which the Minister has responsibility.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point—I think this is an important point, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: It’s the House’s responsibility.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Absolutely it is. Dr Smith’s question was not about the House’s decision; it was about the Minister’s request to the House by virtue of her motion.

💬 SPEAKER: I don’t think it was. The member will just repeat the last bit of his question.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: The last part of my question was whether such an action—calling submissions one day and requiring they be lodged the next—meets the legal consultation requirements of the Local Government Act. It’s a question about the Act for which the Minister’s responsible.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. Having listened to that, I’m even more certain about my ruling. Are there further supplementaries?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why has she repeatedly stated, and I quote her, “It is unfair that 5 percent of people can overturn a decision of the council.”, when the true position is that the 5 percent of people simply triggers a referendum, and the decision rests with 50 percent of the people?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Because that provision does not apply to general wards or constituencies. It is inconsistent, it is discriminatory, and many councils, as well as the Race Relations Commissioner, have identified that.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does she agree with the advice of her departmental officials, endorsed by the Ministry of Justice, that with electoral law changes there is an additional obligation on Government to publicly consult?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: As I have explained previously, this is a short-term fix. Policy development for an enduring solution will be undertaken later in 2021. This is the second stage. This work will consider possible consultation requirements and/or review and appeal processes, and any role for the Local Government Commission in the process for establishing Māori wards and constituencies. What we are trying to achieve with the bill before the Māori Affairs Committee is a short-term fix to enable those councils who choose to make the decision to have Māori wards to be able to do so in time for the 2022 election.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specific about the advice of officials as to whether there was an extra obligation to consult on electoral law changes. That was not addressed by the Minister.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think the Minister can answer that question, probably with one word.

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Sorry, no, I don’t do one-words.

💬 SPEAKER: It’s really a yes/no question. I know you’re not meant to say that.

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yeah, I know. I get that. But this is a serious issue—this is a serious issue, and many people are very interested in how the Parliament will progress where the view of New Zealand is moving towards, which is to try and find a way to ensure that our councils can include Māori participation, based on the principle of democracy and the foundation of the Treaty of Waitangi. The fix that we are trying to achieve will remove a discriminatory barrier that does not apply to a general ward or constituency and will even the playing field. And I believe that it’s important to highlight that as we work through to the second piece of work, which I have already referred to and is in the legislative statement, to ensure there is broad consultation on the long-term fix.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has still not addressed my question, and that was whether she agreed or not with the departmental advice, supported by the Minister of Justice, that there was an extra obligation—

💬 SPEAKER: OK, OK. We’ve had that twice now, and I do agree with the member. There was a very full explanation, or a very full discussion from the Minister, but there was a very narrow supplementary question. I mean it was far too long, but it was very narrow in its essence. And I think the Minister should just address the very beginning.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Obviously I respect your ruling, but to be clear that there have been many Speakers’ rulings over many years that a yes or no answer is not required to be given in these circumstances in the House. I’m just confirming that is still the rule?

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, that is my—I’m not going to overrule that, but I think it’s pretty hard to address such a narrow question without a bit of a hint one way or the other as to that question. Before I sit down, I just want to say to the Hon Kris Faafoi that, as with the dog whistle comment, suggesting that members opposite are scratching itches is likely to lead to disorder, and I’d ask him to refrain from doing that. I think there are some implications which flow from that which are certainly not parliamentary.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, hang on; I’ve ruled on this. I’ve asked the Minister to reply. We’ll have that, and if the member has another one, we’ll deal with it afterwards.

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes, I agree that electoral law matters require thorough consultation, which is why I referred to the second-stage process, which is looking for the longer-term fix for Māori wards and constituencies, where there will be a thorough consultation period.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order. Just in the exchange just then, I think you made a reference to the Hon Nick Smith’s supplementary being too long, and I just want to query that and what you thought was too long about that supplementary, because Dr Smith was speaking deliberately and slowly, but the supplementary was no longer than any other supplementary for the last 10 years.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, that may be a fair point, but I think it’s fair to say that the relative length of it and the time that it took tended to be a factor in the lack of focus on the very core thing, which was in about the first three words.

💬 Hon Marama Davidson: Can the Minister confirm that the purpose of the requested select committee report-back date and the shortened legislative time frame is to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi by allowing territorial authorities to decide on Māori wards for the 2022 local elections in the exact same—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Now this member has asked a supplementary that was far too long.

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes, and can I thank the Green Party for their continued advocacy on te Tiriti o Waitangi and inclusive participation in local government.

Question No. 4—Health

4. to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made on the progress of He Ara Oranga: Report of the Government Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction?

Earlier this week I announced that the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission has officially got to work on contributing to better and equitable mental health and wellbeing outcomes for all people in New Zealand. On Tuesday, the inaugural Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission and its board, as the commission, marked its first day as an independent Crown entity. The next step in our commitment to honour He Ara Oranga: Report of the Government Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction and to transform the mental health addiction system is now under way.

💬 Dr Tracey McLellan: What function will the permanent commission perform within the system?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The commission is responsible for providing system-level oversight of mental health and wellbeing, advocacy for the system and its consumers, and holding the Government of the day and other decision makers to account for the mental health and wellbeing of all the people of Aotearoa New Zealand. The commission is tasked with building on the roles of existing organisations that contribute to mental health and wellbeing by looking across the whole system.

💬 Dr Tracey McLellan: What role will the permanent commission play within the health system?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As a system leader, the commission’s focus is on the contributors of mental health and wellbeing, including health and disability, social welfare, housing, education, and justice. The commission will also focus on the social determinants of health, such as housing, employment, and poverty. This work will make a tangible difference to our health and social systems in years to come.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What progress has been made on He Ara Oranga’s report recommendation that, and I quote, “Criminal sanctions for the possession for personal use of controlled drugs should be replaced with civil responses, such as fines or treatment programmes.”?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Some of the work on that particular recommendation pre-dated the report with the changes to the Misuse of Drugs Act made in 2019, and, of course, broader, you might say, legalisation and decriminalisation at least of cannabis was the subject of a referendum question in last year’s general election, but the collective answer from the electorate on that question was no.

Chlöe Swarbrick: So beyond the issue of cannabis, will the Minister repeal and replace the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to ensure drugs are treated as a health issue not a criminal issue, as recommended under He Ara Oranga, the mental health and addiction inquiry?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I think it is fair to say that the need for attention to the Misuse of Drugs Act is an ongoing issue. I know that in relation to the changes that were made in 2019 and their application in practice—it has been the subject of conversation between myself and the Minister of Police, and we are keen to establish a review just to see how the discretion that’s provided for in those changes to that legislation are being applied in practice, with a view to ensuring that what was intended then—which was a shift from drug law enforcement, from a punishment, to a health response—is actually being manifest in practice.

💬 Matt Doocey: Why does he believe his Government has been criticised by the retiring Mental Health Commissioner and also the chief executive of the Mental Health Foundation for having no transparent plan for the implementation of the inquiry recommendations?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The outgoing Mental Health Commissioner did a report as at the end of June last year that drew attention to the fact that there was no concluded comprehensive plan following He Ara Oranga. He was correct in that. Work is continuing. Work is continuing on that, but I think the reality is both the outgoing Mental Health Commissioner and the head of the Mental Health Foundation understand that after nine years of poor investment in mental health and running down our mental health systems, it is going to take some time to fix up the mess.

💬 Matt Doocey: Can the Minister confirm the recommendations for He Ara Oranga, the mental health inquiry, were under his Government last term?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: What I can confirm is that because of the parlous state of mental health and wellbeing services in New Zealand, this Government, in its first term, was forced to commission a comprehensive review that led to He Ara Oranga, and we are in the process of fulfilling its recommendation.

Question No. 5—Economic and Regional Development

5. to the Minister for Economic and Regional Development: What recent reports has he heard regarding the impact of regional economic development investments in Northland?

Last week, I spent five days in Northland as part of Waitangi commemorations and also to hear firsthand the impact of our direct investment in partnership in the region. Investment in the regions through the Provincial Development Unit (PDU) is a central part of our COVID recovery plan to support infrastructure, jobs, and businesses. I visited six projects and spoke to dozens of people representing local councils, iwi, manufacturers, tourism businesses, primary producers, education providers, cultural institutions, community groups, volunteers, and innovators, who all responded enthusiastically to the partnership approach we are taking to the region. I would like to personally thank the Northland PDU team of Vibeke Wright, Tania Anderson, Petra Witana, and Jade Morunga, who are doing a fantastic job representing their local communities.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: Did he receive specific feedback from Northland councils or businesses about particular projects?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: Six projects I visited are spread throughout Northland, from the Ōhaeāwai battle site enhancement to the Ngāwhā Innovation and Enterprise Park in Kaikohe; the Waiariki Ngāwhā Springs, Kaikohe; Waima Topu B farm; the Manea Footprints of Kupe centre in Ōpōnoni; and the Waitangi Mountain Bike Park. I won’t pick favourites but it’s clear that each and every project is making a quantifiable difference to jobs, businesses, and economic development in the regions. For example, the Far North Holdings Ltd received a grant of $19.5 million to develop 165 hectares into the Ngāwhā Innovation and Enterprise Park. It will enable the processing of high-value primary products like berry fruit and avocados to be scaled up. Importantly, it will create a circular economy where waste from the berries and avocados will be converted on site into biogas. This project would not have proceeded without Government investment.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: What impact are these projects having for Māori economic development?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: The investment is about much more than economic development. It’s also having a significant bearing on intergenerational legacies around the management of iwi land and enables the retelling of histories of local hapū and iwi. For example, the Waima Topu B Ahu Whenua Trust received a reasonably modest investment of just under $1 million from the Whenua Māori Fund. The land had been neglected by the former leaseholder but is being transformed into a high-performing beef farm with excellent pasture management. The Government’s investment supports the owners to be active managers of their land and increases productivity and, more importantly, restores the whānau’s pride in their land. The owners are now supported to clear scrub and redevelop the pasture, and once poor-quality land will become productive and a commercial success for the hapū and iwi. It’s likely to result in a $321,000 increased profit per annum.

Question No. 6—Housing

6. to the Minister of Housing: Does she agree with the Prime Minister that whether people rent or own, “it is considered unaffordable to have someone paying more than 30 percent of their income on the cost of their housing”?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, 30 percent is an international benchmark that is used to indicate whether housing costs are affordable or not. For public housing, we have set the rent at 25 percent of income. The proportion of people spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs is higher for renters than homeowners. The biggest increase in the proportion of renters paying more than 30 percent of their income happened in the 1990s, and that proportion has been relatively stable in recent years.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does she think that it’s unacceptable that the most recent statistics show that nearly one-third of households are paying 30 percent or more of their income on housing costs?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I agree that we need to be doing more to ensure that housing remains affordable, which is exactly why our Government is looking at a range of measures to both boost supply and address demand pressures. We’ve already undertaken a number of reforms to help renters, such as only allowing one annual rent increase. We’re also doing work on the largest public house build in a generation, and we are rolling out a progressive homeownership scheme to help more people into their own homes. We are also progressing work around further developing the build-to-rent sector. These reforms will make a difference, but we know that there is much work to be done.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will the Government respond to address the fact that because of significant rent increases, the annual inflation faced by beneficiaries in 2020 was almost three times higher than for other households?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: That’s not a matter that I have direct ministerial responsibility for, but I do know that our Government is committed to ensuring that those on the lowest incomes are able to afford a decent living, and we are continually looking at what more we can do to support them.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does the Government have a target for the maximum percentage of income that people, particularly those on low fixed incomes—like beneficiaries—are spending on housing costs?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I indicated in the answer to my primary question, when it comes to public housing—those houses that are covered off by the Income Related Rent Subsidy—that is set at 25 percent. More broadly: no, we do not have a target around the proportion of income. But I think what is important is that we are committed to ensuring housing is affordable, and that is why we are rolling out a number of initiatives that will address both supply and demand.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: How will the Government test the success of those policies that she’s just referred to, to make sure particularly those on low fixed incomes—like beneficiaries—are able to have affordable housing?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: One way in which we will test it is by continually increasing the number of public houses we have. As I have indicated to the member, we are building the most public houses that have been built in a generation, and we’ll have built 18,000 of those houses by 2024. That is where people will be paying 25 percent of their income on an Income Related Rent Subsidy. More broadly, we will know that we have been successful when all New Zealanders live in a warm, dry, affordable home, whether they are renting or owning.

Question No. 7—Education

7. to the Associate Minister of Education: What is the Government doing to better support clearer and more relevant learning in schools?

Today, I announced, alongside Minister Davis, the next steps on the Government’s plans to refresh the New Zealand national Curriculum. We know significant change is needed to deliver a new Curriculum that will support students’ progress and achievement through quality learning, teaching, and leadership. We are working towards a bilingual national Curriculum that is fit for purpose, reflects our bicultural context, and ensures that learning is not left to chance.

💬 Angela Roberts: How will the refreshed Curriculum make a difference for teachers and students?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: As a former teacher, I know firsthand the challenges our teachers face. These changes seek to reduce teacher workload by providing greater clarity and guidance on what to teach and when. For students, we will prepare them for successful futures by developing critical skills and capabilities and provide a strong grounding in their own identity, culture, and language.

💬 Angela Roberts: How does the Government intend to work with teachers on the development and refresh of the Curriculum?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: The refresh will be an iterative and collaborative process over the next four years, taking on board the insights from teachers at all stages. It’s an ambitious programme, starting with the New Zealand histories curriculum, followed by the English, maths, and science rewrite. I have made it clear that I want teachers, learners, parents, iwi, and communities to be consulted in a meaningful way throughout the process.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Regarding her statement today that the Curriculum would focus on wellbeing, identities, language, and culture, what happened to the focus on maths?

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Ha, ha! Wow!

💬 SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The Deputy Prime Minister will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: Now, I’m going to ask the Hon Jan Tinetti to answer the question, but I think people do know that they are meant to be quiet, notwithstanding the provocation, while questions are being asked.

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: I’m not sure that that member actually listened fully to my answers to the second question, when I said that we are starting with the histories curriculum, followed by the English, maths, and science rewrite.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: So why did she say in her press release today that the Curriculum would focus on wellbeing, identities, language, and culture?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: As that member will know, all of those areas are most important when developing a new Curriculum, but listening to—I will reiterate—my second answer today, it’s an ambitious programme, starting with the New Zealand histories curriculum, followed by the English, maths, and science rewrite.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order. Mr Speaker, just before, you referred to a provocation by what can only have been the question from this side of the House. What did you mean by that?

💬 SPEAKER: Do you really want me to detail it?

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Yes.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I’m happy to. What I regarded was a question about the importance of maths from the former finance spokesperson for the National Party.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Unbelievable.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! That was the reason for the excessive noise which I required the Deputy Prime Minister to withdraw and apologise for—both for that and for interrupting me when I was on my feet.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order. So are you saying that because you found it personally funny, you call it a provocation, which we regard as offensive on this side of the House?

💬 SPEAKER: No. I did not find it funny; I found it ironic.

💬 Hon Michael Wood: Will the biography of the Hon John Banks be part of a new English curriculum?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: Of course, during all of this rewrite and refresh of our Curriculum, we’ll be looking at the quality of resources that sit beside that. I’m not sure that that’s of a high enough quality.

Question No. 8—Housing

8. to the Minister of Housing: Does the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 require tier 1 and tier 2 local authorities to make more space available for housing development this year; if not, by what date are tier 1 and tier 2 local authorities required to make any such changes?

In answer to the first part of the question, no. Councils are required to publicly notify their plan changes that give effect to these policies by August 2022. This will kick off the public process in Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act involving public submissions and hearings. Decisions on these plan changes must be made within two years of the public notification—that is, if the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPSUD) plan changes are publicly notified by August 2022, they must be decided on by August 2024. Shorter deadlines risk lengthy legal challenges to the plan changes and could undermine delivering the intensification outcomes sought, although I would like to point out to the member that we are already seeing the impact of the NPSUD on planning decisions. Hearing panels, the Environment Court, and other decision makers already need to take it into account, and there is evidence they are using it to enable more houses to be built. I would also point the member to the fact that while we enact this long-term substantial change that is needed in our country, we do have short-term tools available such as the COVID fast-track tool.

💬 Nicola Willis: Why is the Government waiting until 2024 to increase the space available for new housing in urban areas facing major housing shortages?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I outlined in the answer to my primary question that this is long-term substantial change, that we do need to go through the process to ensure that it is done correctly, and that we do not want to risk lengthy legal challenges that would ultimately undermine the intent that I think both sides of the House would like to see, which is more land available for development and for housing. But I would like to remind that member that while we go through this longer-term substantive change that is occurring, we have put in place shorter-term mechanisms that can be used, such as the COVID fast-track consenting process that is under way.

💬 Nicola Willis: Why won’t the Minister simply legislate to increase the space available for new housing in urban areas facing major housing shortages?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We are continually looking at what options are available, but what we do want to do is to ensure that we are also progressing the long-term substantive change that that member’s party failed to achieve when they were in Government. What we do need to ensure is that we have all the components right, and we are looking at shorter-term tools that range over a number of areas. I’d like to point the member to some comments from Dave Kelly from the Master Builders Association yesterday, when he said, “Our focus will be on ensuring we use the opportunity of the RMA reform to address these underlying issues rather than short-term fixes that fail to address the ongoing issue.” We as a Government are determined to make substantial and lasting change.

💬 Nicola Willis: Well, what are the emergency measures that the Prime Minister claimed were already under way to increase land supply for housing?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I have already, in the series of answers that I’ve given to the member during this questioning session, pointed to the fact that we have the fast-track COVID tool that is under way. We already have, I think it is, off the top of my head, five housing developments that are going through that process. We also already have the ability for councils to use tools that sit within the regulatory tool box. As I have said to that member, we are a Government that is committed to making sure we are doing all we can to address the housing crisis, and we are currently looking at a range of measures.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Does the Minister think it is helpful for members of Parliament to bring petitions before the House to stop the development of housing on land simply because they don’t like it in their community?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I would like us to see, as a Parliament, is to find some common consensus and not be part of the nimbyism that can grow around some of these issues. It is not helpful when local members try and stop the fast tracking of land opening up for the building of badly needed housing in areas such as Hamilton.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order. I seek leave of the House to table the many letters I received from Labour MPs objecting to the fast tracking of housing developments when National was Government.

💬 SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

Documents not tabled.

💬 Nicola Willis: Is the Minister considering strengthening or accelerating the requirements of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020, and, if not, why not?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I am currently considering a range of options. Some of those are to do with the national policy statement (NPS).

💬 Nicola Willis: Will the Minister bring forward the requirements of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020, and, if so, when?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I have answered in both the primary and one of the supplementary questions to the member, I do not want to put us at risk of shorter deadlines in what is needed around substantial and lasting change in the NPS process. We do not want to bring the risk of legal action, further delaying plan changes and slowing down the intensification and opening up of land. But that is not to say that we are not looking at short-term interim options while we make this long-term substantial change that is required.

Question No. 9—Transport

9. to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about helping reduce emissions across the transport sector?

Along with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Climate Change, I recently announced three initiatives to reduce transport emissions. Firstly, we’ve agreed in principle to mandate a lower-emitting biofuel blend across the transport sector; secondly, we’re going to work to help councils to fully decarbonise the public transport bus fleet by 2035; and, thirdly, we are moving quickly to introduce a clean car import standard to reduce emissions and Kiwis’ fuel costs, noting that currently New Zealand is one of only three countries in the world, alongside Russia and Australia, to lack such a standard. Action is overdue, and we are taking action.

💬 Shanan Halbert: How much could these reduce our emissions by?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Given that transport makes up 47 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, it’s important that the sector does its bit to get us to net zero by 2050. The import standard will result in average fuel savings for families of nearly $7,000 over the lifetime of their vehicles and stop over 3 million tonnes of climate pollution going into our atmosphere. The impact of decarbonising the bus fleet by 2035 is estimated to prevent up to 4.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2050, and biofuels over time will prevent millions of tonnes of emissions from cars, trucks, trains, ships, and planes. On this note, I note that an estimated 6.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions would have been avoided had the Clark Government’s biofuel mandate not been abolished by the incoming National Government in 2008.

💬 Shanan Halbert: What reactions has he seen to these announcements?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The reaction from a range of stakeholders has been extremely positive. The AA, Air New Zealand, Neste, and Z Energy have all welcomed the Government working on the biofuels mandate. Local Government New Zealand, Auckland Transport, Mayor Goff, Environment Canterbury, Greater Wellington, and many others have all welcomed our work on supporting local government to decarbonise public buses. While there is some discussion about the target date, I note that Drive Electric, Toyota, and the AA have all recognised and welcomed the need for a fuel efficiency standard on imported cars.

Question No. 10—Health

10. to the Minister of Health: How many full-time equivalent staff are employed by the Government’s $455 million front-line mental health service, and how many people have been seen by this front-line mental health service to date?

The $455 million that the member refers to is an allocation over four years solely to expand access to, and choice of, mental health and addiction services in primary health care and community settings. I’m advised that currently 351 full-time equivalents are engaged to deliver access and choice in front-line mental health services across 18 DHBs. That’s a significant improvement from where things were at four years ago. To the second part of the member’s question, not all service providers can report consistently against people’s National Health Index numbers. This is a symptom of how fragmented the health system is, and is another reason why the Labour Government’s committed to the broad direction laid out in the Health and Disability System Review. What I can tell the House is that the funding has so far resulted in 73,444 sessions to December, and 6,578 people were seen in the month of December alone.

💬 Matt Doocey: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The second leg of that question asked how many people had been seen by the service to date.

💬 SPEAKER: The member explained—if the member had listened—right at the beginning of the answer for the second part of it that the fragmented information that he is able to collect couldn’t give the exact answer.

💬 Hon Member: Yet he gave it one month.

💬 SPEAKER: Then he gave, I thought, more information than was asked for, but I thought he was trying to be helpful rather than smart.

💬 Matt Doocey: Given the amount of money allocated towards establishing the service, does the Minister agree that it would have made sense to keep track of the number of people accessing it to know that he will reach his expected target of 325,000 people per year?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I don’t disagree with the member, but, unfortunately, over many years, going right back to when that member’s party was in Government, they allowed the IT systems across the network of DHBs and hospitals to run down to such a point where there is now quite a degree of variability of how data is collected on services that are provided to patients. That is why I cannot give that member an accurate figure, or a precise number, of those who have been using those services. I can give him a figure on what happens each month, but I can’t distinguish from one month to the next whether somebody has had treatment over multiple months or not. That is the state of the IT systems in our health sector, which is why it urgently needs to be remediated.

💬 Matt Doocey: How can the Minister be confident the service will see the expected 325,000 people annually by 2023-24, when nearly two years after it was announced, the service has only been rolled out to 11 percent of GP practices?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: What the member’s figure does is it doesn’t distinguish between size of practice. So 11 percent of practices doesn’t actually equate to the percentage or proportion of the population covered. What I can say is, knowing that of the $455 million appropriated, and a rising profile over four years, $145 million is expected to have been spent by 30 June this year, and so far $99 million has been committed to the end of December—another six months to go. I’m confident that we are on track to fulfil our expectations of the use of that $455 million.

💬 Matt Doocey: If the Minister is confident of being on track, what is his target for this year of the amount of people to be seen by this new service?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, I don’t want to reprise the answers I’ve been giving about just the data that we can collect and therefore how we can measure it. What I can talk about, however, is the money going out the door. That is going when people get the front-line mental health services that that appropriation was for, and we are on track to spend that money, as expected, when that appropriation was made in 2019.

Question No. 11—

Research, Science and Innovation

11. to the Associate Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: What recent announcements has she made about supporting early-career researchers in response to the COVID-19 pandemic?

New Zealand’s education system turns out world-class scientists and researchers. After completing their PhD, researchers—or post-docs, as they’re called—often travel overseas to gain experience, but in the past year, many have been unable to due to travel restrictions. In recognition of this, last month I announced the MBIE Science Whitinga Fellowship, which will fund 30 of our best and brightest early career researchers with a one-off fellowship worth $320,000 each over two years.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: So what will the fellowship funding be used for?

💬 Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: This initiative is about attracting and retaining talented researchers and giving them the opportunity to develop their skills here in Aotearoa New Zealand. The fellowship is open to researchers at an eligible New Zealand research institution in all fields, including science, the humanities, mātauranga, and social science.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: So what reaction has she had to the announcement of the fellowship?

💬 Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The response from the research community has been very positive, which I believe reflects the real need to support our up-and-coming researchers. The deputy director of the Robinson Research Institute at Victoria University of Wellington praised the initiative, saying that “We have been training these PhDs and this was one of the missing links in order for these young researchers to develop their careers.” He added that “With this, we can retain significant talent here in New Zealand.”

Question No. 3 to Minister

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a selection of letters from territorial authorities and regional councils, dated the period between February 2018 and December 2020, supporting the change to legislation removing a discriminatory provision to enable Māori wards and constituencies to be established.

Is there any objection to that occurring? There appears to be none.

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

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a statement from the Public Service Association representing approximately 72,000 members, 9,000 of which work in councils across the country, in support of legislative change to establish “Māori wards to make our councils more genuinely representative.”

Is there any objection to that letter being tabled? It appears no.

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

Point of order. When the first leave was being sought, you looked rather disparagingly at some grumblings about the length of the leave request. The Standing Orders are very clear that when somebody seeks leave to table a document, the date and source of the document and the title of it is sufficient. It should not be then described in the level of detail it is, and what we’re seeing is a creeping of that, and I just want to draw that to your attention.

The member is absolutely right. There was, on this occasion, as there was earlier in the day, some creep as far as the—well, the lack of description of documents, and extra material occurred, and that will not. But what occurred on this particular occasion was a clear interjection which was out of order while a point of order was being taken. All right?