Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he seen on financial support given to businesses in the wake of recent alert level changes?

The Government has a number of different types of financial support available for businesses during alert level changes. The resurgence support scheme, which has kicked in for both the alert level changes, on 14 February and 28 February, has so far paid out $73.64 million to just over 37,500 businesses and sole traders. The payment is intended to help businesses with their fixed costs, like rent, and is still open for applications for both recent alert level changes.

💬 Anna Lorck: What reports has he seen on the wage subsidy scheme after the most recent alert level changes?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The wage subsidy scheme opened for applications last Thursday and as of this morning there had been 37,725 applications for the subsidy. Payments began yesterday and already just over $82 million has been paid out.

💬 Anna Lorck: What progress has been made on auditing the wage subsidy scheme?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There has been a lot of interest in the integrity measures around the wage subsidy scheme, and I can report to the House that as of the end of February, 12,009 complaints had been received by Inland Revenue, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and the Ministry of Social Development around the wage subsidy scheme; 10,934 audits have been resolved. There have been 20,973 refunds received, with $726.2 million paid back to date.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes. Also, the announcement today by Minister Hipkins around establishing an advisory group that ensures, as we continue to respond to COVID-19, that we are continually improving and adapting our response. We’ve been very pleased to appoint a group that will be chaired by Sir Brian Roche, who’s been involved in these continuous improvement assessments before. He’ll be joined by Rob Fyfe, who I’ve been using on an ongoing basis as an adviser with the private sector, Dr Debbie Ryan, Professor Philip Hill, and Dr Dale Bramley, who has expertise in this area from a public health approach.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: What were the criteria used for deciding to go out of lockdown on 17 February and back into lockdown 10 days later?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We have a set of criteria that we’ve been using continuously throughout COVID-19 and movements around alert levels. It is not based solely on whether or not we have single cases or, indeed, whether or not a case emerges; it’s all about whether or not we can identify the source of it and whether there are high-risk exposure events. So, to give you a specific example, the decision to go into level 3 in the most recent outbreak was because we had an individual where we could not immediately identify the source, but more importantly, perhaps, a high number of significant exposure events that we considered to be high risk, given the sheer number of people who may have come in contact with the case.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Why did Cabinet decide to come out of lockdown when only 76 percent of close contacts had at that time returned a negative COVID test on 17 February?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, at that time—and we had the discussion with the Director-General of Health and followed the advice there—we had still, of course, identified those who were needing to be tested. They had been told and required, of course, to isolate at home. They were not able to return, for instance, to their schooling environment until they had been tested. So we absolutely knew there were a cohort that remained for testing, but also had high confidence that that process would continue. There was an expectation that we could have a positive case from that cohort, but that was not contingent on us moving alert levels.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does she agree with the Unite against COVID-19 Facebook page that the KFC worker was not required to isolate while they awaited the results of their test?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Oh, I think this has been well traversed. I don’t have personal responsibility for the individual comments that are made in response to comments on a Facebook page, and nor, as I understand, do those responses go through the Ministry of Health, who ultimately are the ones that provide the advice on what people should or shouldn’t be doing when they’re isolating.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Well, does she agree with the Unite against COVID-19 Facebook page, that said that the KFC worker was not required to isolate while they awaited the results of their test?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, I do not agree with what was stated there. I stand by the Ministry of Health advice that was issued quite publicly.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does she agree it is now clear that the KFC worker was told conflicting things?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We would never give public health advice via Facebook comments and messages. That is not where we provide health advice. The other point that I’d make to the member is that this line in a comments section is not the place where we would be providing specific information to a household. The point that I think I’d also make to the member is the member is conflating these two cases. What happened with that particular household was not responsible for our return to level 3, and I think it was unfair to give any implication in this House that it may have been the case.

💬 David Seymour: So should the public pay any attention at all to the Government’s official New Zealand COVID Facebook page?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I’m clearly identifying here is that the statement made in a comment section was conflicting advice and not correct. We, of course, have stood by the advice, which was that all of those school students needed to be tested and needed to return a negative result.

💬 David Seymour: So is the Prime Minister’s advice to the public: “Listen to the comments on the Government’s official Facebook page but not the posts.” or is it “Listen to the posts but not the comments.”, because this is getting more confusing by the moment?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We have not changed our position. What was said was wrong.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: When will she apologise to the 19-year-old KFC worker who is now being blamed by her publicly?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: And I again would refute that. What we’ve said is that the advice was clear: the students at that school needed to be tested. We, unfortunately, had a case where that did not happen for the better part of eight days. But never have I implied that anything was done deliberately. The vast majority of those school members were tested, but, unfortunately, we had a situation where there was a long delay before that happened for one household.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does she think it’s appropriate for her, as Prime Minister, to blame the reason 1.5 million people had to suffer a seven-day lockdown on the actions of a 19-year-old who’s only recourse to defend themselves was to go on Newshub at 6 p.m. that night?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have never claimed—never—that we entered level 3 because of that case; and, in fact, I’ve just stood here and clarified that the question the member is asking is implying something that is totally incorrect. The first day I was asked about this case, we hadn’t even had a positive case that led to level 3. We were out of alert levels when I was first asked about it.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Well, if that’s so, why was the Prime Minister talking to the nation about the 19-year-old KFC worker in such a determined way about her behaviour?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, this was asked of me on the Friday after we had returned out of alert levels. So it is patently incorrect. The member is, I’m sorry, wrong.

Question No. 3—Education

3. to the Minister of Education: What is the Government doing in schools to tackle material hardship for families while also improving educational outcomes?

The start of the school year can be an expensive time for families, with a lot of additional costs. Providing a daily nutritious lunch is one way we can help ease the pressure on the household budget and ensure that our kids don’t miss out on learning because they are hungry. I can report that an additional 88,000 students and 322 schools and kura across the country have started the school year with a regular lunch on the menu thanks to the Government’s Ka Ora, Ka Ako healthy school lunches programme. They joined 42,000 students already receiving weekday lunches under the scheme, which was launched last year to help tackle child poverty, improve youth wellbeing and learning, and boost local economies.

💬 Angela Roberts: How much further will the programme be expanded?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: By the end of the year, around 964 schools and kura, covering over 215,000 year 1 to 13 students, or around 25 percent of the student population across New Zealand, will be receiving a regular healthy lunch at school. We’ve already served up over 3 million lunches last year, with an additional 3 million lunches so far served this year, and we’re just getting started.

💬 Angela Roberts: What are the benefits of this programme to the community as a whole?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There’s huge benefits to the school community in that teachers report students are more engaged and, actually, student attendance in schools with the lunches programme improves. School lunches also have a positive impact on the wider community, with the whole of the supply chain benefiting, from local growers, delivery drivers, local businesses, and community organisations that are preparing the lunches and supplying the schools. About 950 jobs have already been generated by the programme, and it’s estimated that around 2,000 jobs will be created by the end of this year.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

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

Yes, including our announcement yesterday that the Government has guaranteed that every New Zealander will have access to the Pfizer vaccine, after securing an additional 8.5 million doses. This brings our total Pfizer order to 10 million doses, or enough for 5 million people to get two shots of the vaccine, needed to fully vaccinate against COVID-19.

💬 David Seymour: Did the Government officials confirm that every person connected to the Papatoetoe cluster who was required to self-isolate actually was self-isolating, and, if not, why not?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Certainly there was the confidence that they’d communicated with members of the community, because that was happening not just through the public health units but through the school itself. And, of course, the high turnout of school members for testing—which, obviously, was over a thousand—demonstrated a level of confidence that those messages had got through.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, the question was about confirming whether people were self-isolating. The Standing Orders are very clear that there needn’t be arguments or imputations other than those necessary to answer the question. The level of vaccination is completely irrelevant from confirming isolation.

💬 SPEAKER: I think there was probably some additional information given by the Prime Minister. That’s not against the Standing Orders.

💬 David Seymour: Thank you, Mr Speaker, but point of order. My question was—had she addressed the question. I agree with you; she said more than she needed to—

💬 SPEAKER: She did address it, right at the beginning.

💬 David Seymour: OK, I’ll have to accept your ruling, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: Good.

💬 David Seymour: Was every close contact in the Papatoetoe cluster contact traced and told by officials to self-isolate within 48 hours, and, if not, why not?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My recollection, of course, is that those defined as close contacts in that case were the 31 class members, and, yes, we returned those results relatively quickly. You’ll remember from that we had one positive result. Then for the rest of the wider school community, yes, they were all, of course, asked to go home, isolate—or stay home, indeed, because it was the 14 February and a Sunday; stay home, isolate, and be tested. The point I was making in the answer to my first question is that the high number of individuals who then presented for testing demonstrated the confidence that officials had that those messages were getting through.

💬 Chris Bishop: Is it the Government position that comments made by the Unite against COVID-19 Facebook page should not be relied on, and, if that’s the case, why should the public have any faith in the substantive comments posted by that Facebook page?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister anticipate any kind of reprimand or penalty of case L for failing to follow rules that they were made aware of by the Government?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In fact, thank you—I thank the member; this is an opportunity, I think, to correct one of the statements that was made during the opening back and forth. I was asked at some point whether or not—at the bidding and urging, I think, of some Opposition members, for people to be prosecuted. The point that I made was that although those aren’t decisions for any member of the Government, it’s wrong to assume that people don’t feel the consequences of when these issues happen. No one here has ever said anyone has deliberately ignored advice or not taken heed of the advice that has been given. But the idea of when a mistake happens or an error happens that there isn’t consequence—I think people feel that acutely. The idea that a fine somehow changes the experience people have where things go wrong, I think is wrong. People do feel that consequence deeply.

💬 David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister saying that the person’s inviting the judgment of the whole country from the highest podium of the land, when case L has no platform from which to defend themselves, is enough of a consequence and fines aren’t necessary?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, no. What I’m saying is this idea that we somehow improve an environment and create an environment where people will go out and willingly be tested or tell our contact tracers the truth—the idea that that is enhanced by fines, or indeed prosecutions, I think is a really debatable point, and, ultimately, those aren’t decisions we make. But we all have to make sure we try and create an environment where people know how important it is to follow the rules, to get tested when we ask for testing to occur, and to give all the information to our contact tracers.

💬 Chris Bishop: Has she investigated how and why what she now says is incorrect information was posted by the Unite against COVID-19 Facebook page?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think the member needs to give the context here. There was a discussion on a thread, as I understand, and then someone replied in response to that. So the point that I’m making to the member is the idea that we would communicate important information to an individual family who is required to isolate in that form is not accurate. Of course the expectation is that they would receive it directly, either through, for instance, the school or through a public health unit. Obviously, we’ve acknowledged here that the post in that comment section was not correct.

Question No. 5—Social Development and Employment

5. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What support has the Ministry of Social Development provided to people and families affected by the COVID-19 restrictions?

Budget 2020, in response to COVID-19, provided further funding of $200 million over two years to help social service organisations meet the need created by COVID-19 and to help plan for any resurgence. As a result of the recent alert level restrictions, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) have been checking in with social service organisations in Auckland to ensure they’re well placed and able to meet the needs of their local communities. Some reported an increase in demand, but the majority stated that they were well resourced to meet that demand. There were a few who reported needing additional funding, mostly to meet food demand. MSD were able to provide this.

💬 Steph Lewis: What additional support has been provided?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Last week, the Government announced the activation of the most recent COVID-19 wage subsidy. So far, we’ve seen $82 million paid to businesses and self-employed people through the wage subsidy. There has, of course, also been the leave support scheme and the Short-Term Absence Payment. The suite of income support that we’re encouraging businesses and people to tap into is aimed to reduce the financial pressure on businesses and to support everyone to continue their valuable role in keeping COVID-19 in check.

💬 Steph Lewis: How has MSD been connecting with Māori, Pacific, and ethnic communities?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Fact sheets have been produced in 12 different languages and have been shared throughout MSD’s network channels. These are also available online. MSD have strong relationships in the Auckland region and have been working closely with social services and with Whānau Ora commissioning agencies, who play an important role in getting assistance and information out to Māori and Pacific whānau. Alongside this, a targeted strategy has been used to ensure key information has been provided to hard-to-reach groups and the Papatoetoe High School’s contact list of whānau and students.

Question No. 6—Infrastructure

6. to the Minister for Infrastructure: How many of the 170 projects announced by the Government, as part of its shovel-ready scheme announced in April last year, if any, has construction not started on?

I’m happy to advise the member that, in fact, the Government has now contracted 205 infrastructure reference group (IRG) projects, for all of which initial design and planning work has now commenced. Part of the approval process for IRG projects is an expectation the projects must start construction within 12 months of the contracted date. Thus far, construction has started on 49 projects. It is important to note that when we announced the funding for the IRG projects, we were expecting mass unemployment and a need to create extra capacity in our construction sector. Thankfully, that scenario has not eventuated; in fact, we are facing restricted capacity in the construction sector, but the IRG projects are giving confidence to the sector of a pipeline of work.

💬 Andrew Bayly: By what date will the 121 stalled shovel-ready projects have shovels in the ground?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the premise of the member’s question. We have contracted 205 projects. What we have is a construction environment that is thriving, with 21,000 extra workers in the construction sector in December—something the member might want to celebrate.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Why, 12 months after the shovel-ready programme was announced, are there still shovel-ready projects—121—with no shovels in the ground despite there being over 200,000 people on the jobseeker benefit?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I just repeat what I said in my last answer: there are 21,000 more people in the construction sector than we saw in the December quarter. Two hundred and five projects have been contracted. The Government has done the work. We have now got those projects ready to go. As the construction sector can absorb that capacity, we will see those projects roll out.

💬 Andrew Bayly: How many of the 170 shovel-ready projects that were promised have been, or are being, reassessed or re-evaluated?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said to the member in my primary answer, 205 infrastructure reference group projects have been contracted. I believe there might be another 15 that are currently being worked through to be re-scoped, and potentially may not go ahead, but, actually, I think many of them will. [Interruption] Fifteen—15.

Question No. 7—Oceans and Fisheries

7. to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: How many habitats of particular significance for fisheries management have been defined and protected under section 9(c) of the Fisheries Act 1996 in the last 10 years?

Section 9(c) of the Fisheries Act sets out the environmental principles of the Fisheries Act. That principle informs decisions made under other parts of the Act, but habitat protection does not occur under section 9(c). So the answer is that under section 9(c) of the Fisheries Act, none has occurred nor could be.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Does he think that it’s acceptable that under successive Governments, Fisheries New Zealand and the Ministry for Primary Industries have failed to use one of the three key environmental principles in its legislation, which is about identifying areas of significance for fisheries?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I am expecting commentary on that particular issue to be released following the release of the Chief Science Advisor’s report, which I think will be helpful and is likely to suggest further reliance on habitat protection measures that can be enabled under the Fisheries Act that haven’t been.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Has the Minister asked Fisheries New Zealand to consider using section 9(c) of the Fisheries Act to protect seamounts from the impacts of bottom trawling, due to their significance for aggregations of fish such as orange roughy, for fish spawning, and for biodiversity; and, if not, would he consider making such a request?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I will be considering the Chief Science Advisor’s advice, which I think will impact upon issues such as the one that the member has raised.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Does he agree with the statement of NIWA’s Dr Malcolm Clark, about bottom trawling, that it may take “multiple decades or even centuries for a seamount community in the deep sea to recover, and hence management really has got to focus on protecting the unimpacted areas”?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I agree that forms of bottom trawling can cause damage to habitat and that that needs to be minimised.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: When he said in this House last December, “We need to do better in respect of bottom trawling”, when does he expect to be able to do better?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: We’re working hard on advancing those issues, not just through the advice from the Chief Science Advisor but also looking at technological solutions to improve or reduce the impacts of bottom trawling.

Question No. 8—Education

8. to the Associate Minister of Education: What initiatives has the Government recently announced to remove barriers to participating in education for young people in schools?

Recently, I was proud to announce, alongside the Prime Minister, that from June this year, all primary, intermediate, secondary school, and kura students will have access to free period products. Young people should not miss out on their education because of something that is a normal part of life for half of the population. Young people have told us that having a period has caused them to either miss school or not participate because of barriers such as feeling embarrassed or the cost of products. We are removing these barriers by offering free products in all New Zealand schools.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: What did we learn from stage one of the pilot programme for free products?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: Phase one of the period products initiative involved a pilot programme with 15 schools in the Waikato region: 3,200 students have so far received free period products. We learnt that choice in the types of period products made available and the way they access them is important to young people. Yesterday, I heard from a group of high school - aged young women that prior to the period product initiative, periods in their school were stigmatised. The initiative has encouraged more open conversations in schools and communities about menstrual health with both young women and men.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: How will the next phase of the initiative be rolled out across New Zealand schools?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: Based on the lessons and insights we have had from phase one, we are currently running an open tender process for a supplier of period products to be rolled out to the schools nationwide. So far, we have already had 1,294 schools signed up. When the procurement process is complete, the scheme will be rolled out in a phased delivery, with period products available towards the end of term 2 for schools and kura that opt in by March of this year. We want to see fewer young people missing school because of their period, improved participation in school life, and reduced financial hardship amongst families of students receiving products.

Question No. 9—Workplace Relations and Safety

9. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Has the Government commenced a “fundamental review of the design of the [COVID-19 Leave Support Scheme]”, and what changes, if any, is the Government contemplating to the COVID-19 Leave Support Scheme?

The Government has made and announced the changes resulting from its reconsideration of the COVID-19 Leave Support Scheme. The short-term absence payment commenced on 9 February. This new payment has been very successful and in just one month we have already approved 4,770 applications under that scheme. This payment now applies to any worker who cannot work from home but needs to stay at home while they are waiting a COVID-19 test result. The member can find details about the scheme and how to apply on the Work and Income website.

💬 Chris Bishop: Is the Government considering policy to compensate people who are asked to self-isolate at home at 100 percent of what they were earning before being asked to self-isolate, and, if not, why not?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: We’re not currently considering a policy of the nature that the member describes. The Government is providing considerable support to employers and employees including through the Short-Term Absence Payment and the COVID Leave Support Scheme. But we’ll keep a watching brief on this situation as we have throughout the COVID-19 period. In fact, I think one of the successes of the Government’s response to COVID-19 is that we’ve been willing to continuously review the support measures that we’ve put in place, as evidenced by the recent changes to the Short-Term Absence Payment (STAP) scheme.

💬 Chris Bishop: Has he seen the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) advice, which stated that people who cannot work from home and who don’t have sufficient paid leave may face a financial penalty by self-isolating, and, if so, why will the Government not move to increase the amount of money given to workers who are asked to self-isolate?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I’ve seen the full range of advice provided by MBIE to the Government on these matters. As I’ve said, we’ll continue to keep that under review, but we are offering significant support, and the evidence from the fact that in just one month we’ve had 4,770 people take up the STAP scheme—those are employers—suggests that it is hitting the mark. I also note other advice from MBIE which makes this point, and I’ll quote directly from the advice, that the proposed suggestion of paying directly to employees is considerably more complex and “would likely not be implementable in the short term and would raise complex policy issues that would need to be worked through in detail, and the changes would likely require legislative support.” Again, one of the successes of the Government’s COVID-19 response has been that we’ve been able to stand up, support quickly, and get it through to employers and employees. That’s what we’ve been able to do with the STAP scheme. But, again, I don’t rule out further changes if those are justified in the future.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why does Government policy currently entitle workers who are asked to self-isolate to money less than the minimum wage rate that has to be applied for by their employer?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I have a quote here which I’ll read to the House. It’s from Gabby Adds, who is from Employsure, New Zealand’s largest workplace relations adviser, and this was in response to the STAP scheme. She said, “Business owners have a key role in helping restart economic growth in the country. I believe small short-term payments are a step in the right direction that will help put us back on track.” I think what Ms Adds is getting to in that comment is consistent with the Government’s position, which is that there is a role for everyone in making this work. Yes, there is a role for the Government in providing support to employers. That’s what we do through the Leave Support Scheme and the Short-Term Absence Payment scheme, but there is also a role for employers in making sure that people have got access to their full employment entitlements, including sick leave, and there’s a role for employees in terms of staying at home when they’re unwell. It isn’t simply all on Government to pay every dollar, to cover every cost that emerges because of COVID-19, but we are there providing significant support and we’ll continue working with employers to achieve that.

Question No. 10—Emergency Management

10. to the Minister for Emergency Management: What progress has been made in building the capability and capacity of the emergency management workforce?

In August 2018, my predecessor, the Hon Kris Faafoi, on behalf of the Government, invested $5.2 million to establish a specialist rapid-response fly-in team to support communities in an emergency, now known as the Emergency Management Assistance Team. The multi-agency team became operational on 1 September 2019. Last night, I had the pleasure of visiting the third of these 13-day training courses in the mighty, mighty Wainuiōmata. By the end of this course, there is expected to be around 50 trained members of the team from across central and local agencies.

Tāmati Coffey: How does the Emergency Management Assistance Team support responses to local emergencies?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: As part of an emergency response, the team will deploy specially trained emergency managers, at very short notice, to support local groups, including by setting up command centres and providing an event controller. Members of the team have significant experience in crisis response, and bring specialist skills in public information management, strategic communications, operations, planning, and intelligence, and iwi and community engagement.

Tāmati Coffey: What deployments have been undertaken by the Emergency Management Assistance Team to date?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Since the team launched in September 2019, it has been deployed to assist the West Coast in a severe weather event in December 2019, flooding in Southland in February 2020, the all-of-Government response to COVID-19 during March 2020, and a Queenstown deployment in May 2020 as part of the COVID-19 response. While we hope that the team does not need to deploy too often, the events of last Friday were a timely reminder of the hazards and risks that New Zealand faces. Can I thank the team for the dedication and skill that they bring to their work to deliver to New Zealanders a consistent level of support in emergencies, no matter where or when they happen.

Question No. 11—Health

11. to the Minister of Health: Does he consider the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 supports the Government’s commitment to “minimising drug harm and to treating drugs as a health issue”?

Yes, it does support that objective. In the last term of Government, two changes were made to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to better align it with a heath approach. Firstly, in 2018, the Act was amended to include a medicinal cannabis scheme; and secondly, it was amended in 2019, allowing for police discretion over prosecution for possession.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree with the recommendations of He Ara Oranga, the mental health and addiction inquiry, and Turiki! Turiki!, the safe and effective justice review, that we must remove criminal sanctions for a genuine, health-based approach to drugs?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I recall the recommendation from He Ara Oranga, it was that criminal responses that were then in the Misuse of Drugs Act should be replaced with more health-based approaches. That is the effect of the 2019 amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What actions has he asked officials to take in response to the recommendations of those reports to decriminalise drug use in order to implement that health-based approach?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Given that the changes in 2019 to the Misuse of Drugs Act do remove the kind of criminal response leaning of that Act to those who are found to be in possession of classified drugs, I’ve given no further instruction to health officials. We have a large work programme for health, as we speak at the moment, in both mental health and addiction, and in wider health reforms, and that remains our priority.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will the Government respect the outcome of the 2020 referendum and rule out any liberalisation of New Zealand cannabis laws?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Government has respected the outcome of the 2020 referendum on legalisation of cannabis.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Does he agree with the 69 percent of New Zealanders who, in a poll released today, believe that cannabis should no longer be criminalised? [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Who interjected then? Well, someone over here interjected. Could the person who called out indicate who they were? I’ll go back and listen to the tape.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m aware that polls on the issue of liberalisation of cannabis bounce around a bit. It was only two years ago that there were polls showing that the majority of voting New Zealanders were in favour of legalising cannabis. When it was put to 2.7 million voters, it came out with a different view. So I take those polls with a grain of salt.

Question No. 12—Housing

12. to the Minister of Housing: Does she stand by her statement that “Motels are not a suitable environment for vulnerable individuals, families and whanau and they are also not cost effective”; if so, how many people is the Government funding to live in motels now compared to the last quarter of 2017?

Yes, and that is why we have a programme to supply 6,641 transitional homes by 2024. In answer to the second part of the question, in relation to what I have ministerial responsibility for, 293 motel places were being provided as transitional housing in the last quarter of 2017, and in the last quarter of 2020 there were 907 places being provided. There were also 983 additional motel places provided as part of the Government’s COVID-19 response in the last quarter of 2020. These are the additional places we funded to ensure that all New Zealanders had the opportunity to safely isolate during the lockdown.

I’m particularly proud of what we achieved last year during the COVID-19 lockdown, with one community leader saying, “it’s the closest we’ve come in a generation to getting everybody off the street.” I do note there are other motel places funded that I do not have ministerial responsibility for, such as through the emergency housing special needs grant administered by Ministry of Social Development. The number of clients receiving an emergency housing special needs grant has increased from 2,880 in the last quarter of 2017 to 8,503 in the last quarter of 2020. Corrections also provide accommodation. However, figures are not centrally held and are not possible to generate in the time frame available.

💬 Nicola Willis: Is she really saying that as the Minister of Housing, she takes no responsibility for the fact that there are, on her watch, thousands more families, four times as many—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will ask a question. You’ve got one.

💬 Nicola Willis: Is she really saying that—

💬 SPEAKER: No, not again. Just finish.

💬 Nicola Willis: —are being forced to raise their children in motels on her watch?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think if the member listened to my answer, what she would have heard is me outline the bits that I have direct ministerial responsibility for—that come under the appropriation which I am responsible for—and what comes under the Ministry of Social Development, for which a colleague has responsibility. I also pointed to the piece of work that I, as the Minister of Housing, am responsible for, and that is the delivery for additional transitional homes. I do take, absolutely, responsibility for that, because, no, I do not believe it is a place to raise a child—in a motel. But even more, I do not think a car or a garage or a street is a place to raise a child.

Now, that member is a member of a party that in Government refused to admit that we had a homelessness problem. In fact, after nine years in Government, a petition was brought to this House calling on there to be a strategy, a policy, and even a Minister to address homelessness. In 2016, when there was finally some money put in to provide motel rooms, Paula Bennett said that the 3,000 emergency beds being funded through Budget 2016 were only funding what was already being provided because it was just not tenable to deliver the needed beds. So that member should hang her head in shame when it comes to homelessness.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does she take direct responsibility for the fact that her Government is now spending a million dollars a day to house people in motels and boarding hostels?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I also take direct responsibility for is the fact that we are a Government that is willing to admit, address, and finally get some action on the fact that we have a homelessness problem in this country. We have funded the provision of 6,641 transitional housing places in this country. That is going to deliver more than three times what was available. We are a Government with a plan, we are delivering on it, we are willing to admit it, and we are actually funding it.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Would New Zealand have such a need for emergency housing if the previous Government had built additional State houses at the rate the current Government is building them?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order!

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Yes, it’s completely within order.

💬 SPEAKER: No. I think I have, over the last recent time, been a little bit liberal on Government members doing donkey drops about the actions of previous Governments. [Interruption] Not helpful if people want further supplementaries. The other point that I will make now that I’m on my feet is that I’ve been reviewing the Minister’s answers to the questions. The questions to her are about the Government’s response, as she is the Minister responsible for that, and she is responsible, in answering the question, for answering for all of the Government, not just parts of it.

💬 Nicola Willis: Why is it that, more than four years after Labour was elected on a promise to solve the housing crisis, there are now thousands more people being forced to live in motels, at a cost of a million dollars a day?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I can tell that member is that if she thinks that homeless people have magically appeared in the last 3½ years, she has learnt nothing from the inaction and mistakes of her party when they were in Government. What we are is a party and a Government that is committed to finally owning up to the fact we have a homelessness problem in this country, that we have a housing crisis, and that we are putting the actions into place. Those homeless people were previously sleeping in cars, they were sleeping in garages, and they were sleeping on the street. I do not think motels are ideal, but I would put anyone up in a motel over them sleeping on the street any day of the week.

💬 Nicola Willis: Can she confirm that the Government now has financial arrangements in place with more than 950 motels and boarding hostels across this country for the purpose of emergency housing, and is this what Labour meant when it said it would solve New Zealand’s housing shortage?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I don’t have that number—the number of providers—in front of me, because some of those won’t be direct arrangements, because they will be funded through the special needs housing grant, but what I can tell that member is that this is preferable to having 900-odd cars available for people to sleep in, which was the response of the previous Government. What I am still waiting to hear is what the alternative is that that member is proposing. Is she suggesting that we cancel those motel contracts and put those people back on the street, where her party left them?