Oral Questions

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

Yes—in particular, our recent announcement that the Construction Skills Action Plan has delivered early on its overall target of supporting an additional 4,000 people into construction-related education and employment. Since the plan was launched in 2018, more than 9,300 people have taken up education or employment opportunities in the construction sector through cross-Government initiatives. While there is no one thing that is going to fix the issues we’re facing in the housing market, this combines with a series of initiatives we’re rolling out to tackle the barriers to the construction of new homes, including the $3.8 billion fund to accelerate housing supply, repealing and replacing the Resource Management Act, implementing a National Policy Statement on Urban Development, improving access through first-home grants and loans, incentivising investment in new-build homes through exemption to brightline tests—the list goes on.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: So what are the criteria for councils to access the $3.8 billion housing infrastructure funding that she’s just referred to?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What we’ve already talked about publicly is the fact that whilst it will be a contestable fund, it will be on the basis that the local authority is adding to current infrastructure intentions—so we want to see some additionality. There will need to be explicit commitments from third parties. It will require additional housing supply and, of course, will prioritise project readiness and pace, including capability and capacity to deliver and the speed of commencement. It’s also fair to say we’re working closely with both local government and iwi to make sure the final criteria are fit for purpose, and we will be wanting to see in the second half of 2021 that fund being accessed.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: So what is the decision-making process for calculating how much funding each council will receive?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ve already given a bit of a sense of the criteria that we were using for projects—that’s what we put into the public domain. We’re refining that alongside local government, and we’ll be bringing that to Cabinet with a view in the second half of 2021 to put money out. What I can say is unlike the member’s proposals, where they have created a calculation per home—there are issues with delivering in that way as well. The idea that you would pay after a home—and I see that there are two different responses. I think Mr Bayly has said it would be after there’s a code of compliance issue; the legislation I see that’s proposed says something else. But essentially, either way what is being suggested is that it would be paid out to councils after the house is delivered on. The barrier for many councils is right up front, and so we based our proposal on the issues councils have raised with us, and I again, unfortunately, believe that the proposal the member has made won’t solve the problem.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: So how many new houses, if any, will the policy she’s announced enable to be built over the next 12 months?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Whilst I don’t believe we’ve put a time frame around the estimate that’s been provided, the estimate that has been provided has been between 80,000 and 130,000 houses. Again, I would just make the point that the acceleration fund is very much targeted at dealing with an issue council have raised with us. I fear what the member opposite has put up is akin to their first attempt in the Housing Infrastructure Fund, where they put up loans when councils already had hit their debt ceilings. Once again, the proposal the member has put—if, for instance, you saw Auckland’s threshold reached of 13,000 houses, it would only allow for $82 million worth of investment in Auckland. So what I would say to the member is we agree infrastructure’s a problem; I do not believe what you’ve put forward is the answer.

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: Is the Prime Minister aware that officials are unable to tell us how many houses were actually ever completed through housing infrastructure funding because there was no explicit link between housing and infrastructure in that loan scheme?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, so not only did councils raise the concern that they’d already hit their debt ceilings; there also wasn’t that explicit link. We have learnt much from observing what the National Government did, and we have made sure we haven’t repeated those mistakes. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can the two Christchurch members just cut it out.

💬 David Seymour: Would the Prime Minister instead consider implementing ACT’s four-year-old alternative of sharing half the GST on new builds with the council, which Auckland mayor Phil Goff, at the time, welcomed?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, that has not been part of our plans.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does she stand by her statement two months ago that “The Ministry of Health has the ability to get an insight into whether or not border testing is taking place and to troubleshoot if it’s not.”; if so, why was case B, the managed isolation and quarantine security guard who caught COVID-19, able to go more than four months without a test?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the member will know, one of the issues we identified at that time was that private sector employers, who are covered by the requirement to have their employees tested, were not compulsorily covered by the requirement to be part of our national register of testing. That is why the Minister undertook to change that requirement. He has done so. The order comes into force from 27 April.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: So why hasn’t that been done earlier, since we’ve had COVID-19 in New Zealand over the last 12 months?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: One of the things I would point out is actually the number of people that are covered by a private sector arrangement—so, outside of our core employment—actually over time has been reducing. Not everyone has maintained their own register. There have been some who have been linked. But we identified the issue, orders were drafted, they’ve been signed, and that comes into force from 27 April. The second point that I would make is that the legal obligation to be tested existed. It already existed—and, of course, that not only existed; the employer had obligations as well. Now our departments are undergoing work to see what the follow-up will be on the fact that there was a clear breach here around the testing requirements. And I would point out that it is obviously quite difficult when an individual, as we’ve been advised, has lied about being tested.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does she stand by the statement of her COVID-19 response Minister, Chris Hipkins, from October last year, that the Government was “now getting comprehensive reporting” on border testing; if so, how did border worker case B go untested since November last year?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I stated in my last answer, we have been advised by the employer of an issue with the accuracy of the information that was being provided to them. Secondly, we identified at that time the difference in the way that private contractors and their employees were being covered by the testing register. We looked to rectify that, and that has now been done.

Question No. 2—Finance

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

The BNZ/Seek Employment Report released yesterday showed a 10.6 percent jump in job ads last month, which was the best since July last year. The BNZ says that this strong rebound in job advertising was also encouraging, given that, for the first six days of the month, Auckland was still in alert level 3. The regions are also leading the charge, with job advertisements up 21 percent, month-on-month, in both the Bay of Plenty and West Coast.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What reports has he seen on how businesses are viewing New Zealand’s economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The latest New Zealand Institute of Economic Research Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion shows an improvement in general business confidence. It finds that firms are continuing to plan for an increase in staff numbers and investment, with a net 8 percent of firms increasing staff numbers in the March quarter, and a net 18 percent planning to hire in the next quarter. Firms are also feeling more confident about investment, particularly in plant and machinery. As we continue our path to recovery, there is going to be continued volatility, particularly as businesses work through supply chain disruptions and some labour shortages. However, overall, the indicators for the economy are positive, particularly in a global context.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What reports has he seen on the international context for the New Zealand economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is timely to remember that as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread and take lives overseas, we in New Zealand are still enjoying a relatively normal way of life. The global economy is in a fragile state; however, New Zealand tends to track well in comparison. We are investing to aid the recovery while also keeping debt down. The IMF has recently updated its projections using their comparable method of international debt, which forecasts Government net debt in New Zealand to peak at 28 percent of GDP in 2024. This compares to an advanced economy average of 94.8 percent of GDP, or 101.5 percent in the United Kingdom, 111 percent in the United States, and 55 percent in Australia.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and actions?

Yes, in particular our recent announcements around climate change—and I do want to acknowledge the work of Minister Shaw—that New Zealand’s become the first country in the world to introduce a law that requires the financial sector to disclose the impacts of climate change on their business and explain how they will manage climate-related risk and opportunities through the Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Bill that has been recently introduced to the House. And, of course, that the Government is rolling out its plan for a carbon-neutral public sector by 2025 by committing funding to a range of clean-energy projects, including coal boiler replacements, fossil fuel boiler replacements, and projects that’ll achieve a total saving of around 26,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide over the next 10 years.

💬 David Seymour: Does she stand by Grant Robertson writing to the chair of Air New Zealand asking that they, among other things, support economic development, maintain a comprehensive domestic route network, engage in the development of new aviation fuels for New Zealand, enhance its role as a leader for best-practice workplace relations, continue acting as a responsible corporate citizen, and achieve these objectives while operating as a commercially sustainable and capital-efficient business, ending with a note that the Minister would like to get involved in renewal of the board?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister understand that the Companies Act requires those directors to act in what they see as the best interest of the company, and they have been put in an impossible position by this letter from the Minister of Finance?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: To answer the first half of the question, yes.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister stand by her Cabinet commissioning and then releasing this report, He Puapua, and releasing it only in a highly redacted form.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I, of course, would need to go back and see the degree of redaction, but I stand by the decisions of my Cabinet colleagues and Cabinet.

💬 David Seymour: Why hasn’t the Government done as the report suggests and made a major public announcement of its plan to bring New Zealand into what the report calls “Declaration compliance”, a reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Look, I’d say to the member, for the level of specificity that the member is asking for, I would just encourage the member to put a question on notice, and I would be happy to give a fulsome response.

💬 David Seymour: So will the Government rule out, as the report calls for, a “Treaty-based constitution”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m not quite entirely sure it sits at the core of the member’s question here. We have obligations to report on New Zealand’s compliance with a number of declarations that we have historically been involved in beyond just this term of office. If the member is trying to imply that there is anything other than us complying with our obligations there, he’d be most welcome to state that clearly and frankly, because I really question what it is he is implying with this line of questioning.

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the previous National Government under the then previous Minister of Māori Affairs, Dr Pita Sharples, actually went to sign up to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and can the Prime Minister also clarify the basis upon which the next steps towards working through a national plan of action might well be a positive progression?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I can confirm that, and with great fanfare, and that then falls upon future Governments to ensure, following that, that in real terms we act upon our obligations as signatories.

💬 David Seymour: Why, then, does the Prime Minister suppose the previous Government led by Helen Clark refused to sign the UN declaration?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order!

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I don’t have a responsibility.

💬 SPEAKER: It’s a question of responsibility.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Surely, if the previous question was in order in relation to a previous Government, then a question relating to the one previous to that is in order.

💬 SPEAKER: No. Well, the line that I took on that was that the action of the previous Government caused an issue for this Government to have to deal with, and therefore was something for which the Government was responsible. If a previous Government, two back, doesn’t do something and it causes no obligation on the current Government to do anything, then I can’t see where the ministerial responsibility sits.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: Is it a fresh point of order, or is it the same thing being re-argued?

💬 Chris Bishop: Well, it’s just a clarification, sir, because that—

💬 SPEAKER: Well, there’s no such thing as a point of clarification, and the member knows that.

💬 Chris Bishop: Well, point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: A point of order, Chris Bishop.

💬 Chris Bishop: Is it the case now that if, in your opinion, something done by a previous Government has an implication for a future Government, that brings questions within scope?

💬 SPEAKER: I think the member should have a look at Speakers’ rulings, probably around page 167, where he will find that where an action is required of the current Government—if it was caused by the previous Government, it comes in. If it’s not, if there’s no—if nothing flows that the current Government is responsible for, then the question is out of order.

💬 David Seymour: Will the Government rule out establishing a Māori Parliament, as called for by the report He Puapua?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, we have no intention of making such a constitutional change. However, we do commit ourselves to making sure that we are upholding our obligations as Treaty partners by making sure that, for instance, we have the same ability for Māori to be housed, to have job opportunities, to have decent health outcomes—all of which, we have a long way to go. And I would hope that the member would see those as responsibilities that this Parliament, collectively, needs to act on.

💬 David Seymour: Why, then, did her Government close kura hourua, a policy designed to help with Māori educational achievement endorsed by the Iwi Chairs Forum?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We’ve had a long-held view on charter schools, and the member is aware of that.

💬 David Seymour: How should New Zealanders reading He Puapua understand which parts of it the Government intends to implement and which parts it doesn’t?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: This has not been a Government that’s shied away from having frank conversations over the fact that, to date, we have not reached the point that we are obliged to in terms of seeing equity for Māori in the outcomes that I have just outlined: housing, employment, health. We should be open to discussing ways that we can get there, and fulfil the obligations that we place on ourselves, but, equally, ones that the United Nations is encouraging too. But you see in our formal Government responses those that we pick up and take forward, and those that we don’t.

💬 David Seymour: Will the Government, then, rule out “significantly increased return of Crown lands and waters” to Māori ownership, in addition to Treaty settlements?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m not going to get into a hypothetical back and forth here, but, of course, we do have a Treaty process that this House has, broadly, collectively stood by and continues to do so. Māori have, rightly, raised issues around water allocation and the fact that our system today has acted on a “first in, first served” basis, and for undeveloped Māori land, that has led to inequality and unfairness that needs to be resolved. But those are all issues successive Governments have faced. We’re quite committed to try to find resolution to them.

Question No. 4—Housing

4. to the Minister of Housing: Does she stand by the Minister of Finance’s statement that delivering $3.8 billion of grants to councils to pay for housing infrastructure is, as councils have told him, “the most important thing we can do to help them add to supply”, and when will councils start to receive these grants?

Yes, in the context that it was made. Councils have told us that helping to fund infrastructure is the most important thing that we can do to help them add to housing supply. We know that dealing with an infrastructure investment deficit that has been decades in the making is critical. Under-investment in infrastructure has limited both the amount of new land that can be used for residential development and limited the intensification potential of existing urban areas. The intent of the $3.8 billion Housing Acceleration Fund is to increase supply by creating build-ready land for housing via our large-scale programmes, land the Government already owns, private development projects, and iwi and Māori-led projects. I’ll be taking the final design and criteria for the fund to Cabinet by the end of June, and the Housing Acceleration Fund will start making investments in the second half of the year.

💬 Andrew Bayly: How much of the $3.8 billion will be allocated in the next 12 months?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As we’ve talked about on many occasions, that will depend on final designs and I will be taking a paper to Cabinet by the end of June.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Which agency will allocate the grants, and will there be independent experts involved directly in how those grants are allocated to new developments?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I will be taking a paper to Cabinet by the end of June, and further announcements will be made following that.

💬 Andrew Bayly: What processes will councils and developers have to use or adopt to apply for grants?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: One process that we’ll be looking for is building some houses, which will be in stark contrast to previous infrastructure funds that have been put in place. So if I have a look at the Housing Infrastructure Fund that the previous Government put in place—and we are having to deal with the consequences of—you cannot really point to any houses, because the previous Government did not put a necessity on those loans to be tied to housing. That is critical. We are a Government that is making a generational investment in infrastructure because in order to get houses, that has to be done.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m surprised because you are very keen to follow these questions. My question to the Minister was: “What is the process councils and developers will have to adopt or use to apply for grants?” I don’t think the Minister answered that question at all.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think about the first half-dozen words answered it. I should probably have stopped it at that point because it went on for far too long.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will the Government be prioritising infrastructure that supports more new homes within existing urban areas, which will enable lower carbon and more affordable transport options for the people living in those homes?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes. As I indicated in the answer to the primary question, the Housing Acceleration Fund will concentrate on both brownfields and greenfields developments. What we want to do is maximise the intensification potential within our urban areas.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Has she seen analysis from Auckland Council and the OECD that new homes in greenfields areas have an associated infrastructure cost of $140,000 per home, as well as higher greenhouse gas emissions associated with them?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I have seen lots of reports that point for the need to build climate resilient cities that require brownfields development and urban intensification, and that is precisely why the fund is looking at both.

💬 Andrew Bayly: How is it acceptable to announce a $3.8 billion grant scheme without first determining how it will operate?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We’ve been over this many times in this House. Principal decisions have been made around the fund and they’ve been outlined recently by the Prime Minister in her primary question. One, we will be looking for partnerships with councils. We will be looking for additionality. We will be looking for projects that wouldn’t otherwise happen. We have also said that it will be contestable. But what we also know is that if this fund is going to work, now that we have made the budget allocation, we have to work with our partners. We have to work with local councils and we have to work with iwi Māori. Look, New Zealand has been waiting for this fund for decades and I am proud that our Government is delivering it.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Has she, the Minister, seen any examples of people advocating to stop adding to the supply of housing?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes, just as recently as today. I understand that on the day that National released its housing policy, its own deputy leader is actively campaigning against a development in Whangārei that would bring in much-needed houses in an area identified as having a pressing need for new houses. The National Party can’t have it both ways. Either it supports the provision of new housing across the country or it doesn’t.

Question No. 5—Energy and Resources

5. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How will the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund support businesses to transition away from using fossil fuels?

Last week, I announced the first round of co-funding from the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund for 14 projects across our primary sectors and spread around the country, which will receive a total of $23 million. Modelling shows that this first round of co-funding will enable emissions reductions of 149,924 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, equivalent to taking 49,000 cars off the road.

💬 Glen Bennett: What effect, if any, will these investments have on emissions reductions?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Fuel used in manufacturing and production generates about 8 percent of New Zealand’s emissions, and it’s the second-largest source of energy-related emissions for transport. The fund will help deliver up to 10 percent of the gross emissions reductions required from the commission’s first draft carbon budget for the period 2022 to 2025, at an abatement cost of between $20 and $30 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent.

💬 Glen Bennett: What are some examples of projects that have received co-funding?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Woolworks in Timaru is the single largest wool handler in the world, and by replacing its coal boiler it will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by around nearly 12,000 tonnes each year and make the wool scouring industry in New Zealand coal free. McCain Foods in Timaru will reduce carbon emissions by nearly 34,000 tonnes each year through the installation of a new biomass boiler and by utilising fryer heat recovery technology.

Question No. 6—COVID-19 Response

6. to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What does the COVID-19 vaccine: Illustration of volumes and timing of vaccination roll-out graph on the Government’s website say is the number of doses that were due to be administered to date, and is he satisfied with the Government’s COVID-19 vaccine roll-out?

Today, I released a region-by-region breakdown of the numbers that DHBs are expected to reach over the next 2½ months, and this includes actuals through to the beginning of April—and I’m happy to table those. The graph that the member has referenced was an illustrative model of the expected delivery and uptake of the vaccine so that New Zealanders could see the overall sequencing and scale up for the entire year, and it didn’t include specific numbers. In response to the second part of the member’s question, I am broadly satisfied with the roll-out to date. I expect the number of daily doses administered to increase as part of the scale up. And I expect that releasing these numbers today will help district health boards to ensure that they are meeting their forecasts.

💬 Chris Bishop: How does one generate a line graph, which is designed to be illustrative and published to the general public, without using data?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The graph was designed to show the scale up. The actual numbers have been the subject of discussion with district health boards to ensure that when we published those, the district health boards were prepared for those and confident that they could deliver them. The numbers that I’ve released today certainly meet that description.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why is it that when COVID-19 vaccinations were identified last year as being critical to the recovery from COVID, the Government is urgently seeking a programme coordinator, two service design advisers, and several sequencing managers for the COVID-19 vaccination programme?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Recruitment through different phases of the vaccination campaign has been ongoing. But if the member wants to talk about public sector capability—and the woeful state of public sector capability in health inherited by the current Government, because it was run down over nine years by the last Government—I’m happy to engage in that debate.

💬 David Seymour: What details of remuneration for performing vaccinations were offered to pharmacies, and how many pharmacies so far have signed up to operate as vaccination centres?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We’re not expecting pharmacies to be operating as vaccination centres until the second half of the year. The funding model for primary care, which includes pharmacies and GP practices, has been a topic of discussion between the Ministry of Health and primary-care providers to ensure that the funding is fair and appropriate. Those talks have been ongoing.

💬 David Seymour: What should New Zealanders think of a Government that couldn’t organise a vaccination in a pharmacy?

💬 SPEAKER: No, no, no, no.

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject the premise of the question.

💬 SPEAKER: You’re having us on, David.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why is New Zealand ranked just 121st in the world for the number of COVID-19 vaccinations administered per 100 people, and second bottom in the OECD, when he said that we’d be at the front of the queue?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I’ve indicated to the member before, we made a conscious decision to switch our vaccination campaign earlier in the year from using a portfolio of vaccines to using a predominantly Pfizer campaign. That did mean that the overall balance of vaccinations required in the second half of the year increased. In terms of the overall scale up, we have been taking our time to make sure that we are getting this right. We have a far lower wastage rate to other countries that we’re being compared to. The other point that I would make is we are continuing to operate our health system in terms of its business-as-usual practices. Some of those other countries that have a much higher rate of vaccination are able to do that because their health system stopped doing anything else.

💬 Chris Bishop: Is he saying, therefore, that the Government has made an explicit and conscious decision to slow the vaccination programme down from what it decided to do earlier?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: When we made the decision to switch to the predominantly Pfizer-led campaign, it did mean that our second-quarter vaccination numbers went down and our third- and fourth-quarter numbers went up based on the fact that some of the other vaccines that we were anticipating introducing earlier are no longer going to be introduced into the vaccination campaign.

Question No. 7—COVID-19 Response

7. to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What progress has been made on the roll-out of the COVID-19 vaccine programme?

Up to today, we’ve delivered 135,585 doses of the Pfizer vaccine across the country. In the last 24 hours, we’ve delivered 7,695 vaccinations, bringing the weekly total to 34,378. Forty-three percent of all of those vaccinations have been delivered in Auckland, with 19 percent of them going to Māori and Pasifika populations. A large-scale vaccination centre is opening up today in Mount Wellington, which is our second large vaccination centre capable of delivering vaccines to at least a thousand people a day when operating at full capacity. Vaccines will be initially used to vaccinate St John Ambulance staff and police. It’ll operate by appointment only to those people who are based in predominantly Mount Wellington.

💬 Dr Tracey McLellan: What forecasts has he seen on the ongoing roll-out of the vaccine programme?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I released earlier today the breakdown of the numbers the DHBs are expected to reach over the next 2½ months. As it stands, they are on track to deliver more than one million Pfizer doses to New Zealanders in our priority groups by the end of June. That’s based on what DHBs have indicated they are confident they will be able to deliver on. It’s being published online today and it will be updated weekly on the Ministry of Health website so people can track progress. It shows the planned vaccinations each week.

💬 Dr Tracey McLellan: Is he confident that the planned roll-out of the vaccination programme to the end of June is achievable?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes. As I indicated, we’ve been working with each DHB on their individual vaccination plan, to result in the forecast numbers that we’ve released today. What we’ve asked of DHBs in putting these forecasts together is that they be upfront and realistic about what they will be able to achieve in that time frame. That means that we can ensure that any resources can be targeted to those areas that need additional resources in order to meet the goals set in the plan. These are forecasts and not targets. They are a floor, not a ceiling.

💬 Dr Tracey McLellan: What is being done to ensure the roll-out of the vaccine programme is being carried out in an equitable manner?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We know that Māori and Pacific peoples face persistent and pervasive health inequalities in New Zealand. Existing immunisation programmes have not always delivered equitable outcomes for them, and, therefore, tailored approaches are the most effective way to promote uptake in those communities. The ministry and district health boards are partnering together with Māori and Pacific health providers to deliver vaccinations to their local communities and to meet demand beyond their enrolled populations. Over the last week, for example, Manurewa Marae has established the first marae-based vaccination centre, and is offering information and support to people in their community so that they can make informed decisions in a whānau-centred way.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is the Minister going to do to increase the uptake, including a tailor-made position of Māori vaccination levels, given that Māori have the lowest vaccination level of any group so far despite being the most at risk?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I just indicated, I think I just gave the member an example of what I hope to see a lot more of in the coming weeks, which is vaccination approaches that are as close to the communities that we need to increase vaccination rates within as possible. So in terms of Māori, I would expect to see more marae-based vaccination. In terms of smaller, local communities where we know a number of Māori live, they are a priority to get into those communities as quickly as we can so we’d be looking to scale those up. The whānau-based approach that we’ll be taking will ensure that whilst the sequencing framework will guide decisions about the overall order of that, people will not be turned away. So if a whānau show up, for example, with a number of people who meet the criteria and some people who don’t, the whānau will still be vaccinated. It is important that we’re pragmatic in our decisions about making sure that people get vaccinated.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: When can whānau expect to be contacted to be up-taking this vaccination offer?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Some of that has already happened. So if they’re front-line border workers, for example, or the families and whānau of front-line border workers, key workers, we have been actively in the process of contacting them now. That’s predominantly being led by those administering the vaccine, so the primary health organisations, their GP practice, and so on. We will have very proactive outreach programmes to reach those communities that have otherwise proven hard to reach. We know with other vaccination and immunisation campaigns that our Māori and Pacific communities have often been more difficult to reach with those campaigns, so we are very, very focused on making sure that’ve got a lot of resource targeted to make sure that we are really reaching into those communities.

Question No. 8—Environment

8. to the Minister for the Environment: Does he agree with the Reserve Bank’s statement that “land use restrictions impede the ability of the market to increase the supply of houses when demand for houses increases. As a result, house prices tend to increase more than otherwise”; if so, what specific steps is he taking to reduce those restrictions in the next 12 months?

Yes, which is why the Government’s already introduced a number of measures to free up land supply. We’ve updated the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPSUD), requiring councils to make more building opportunities available up and out; we’re actively considering measures to bring forward plan changes to comply with the NPSUD; we’re already using the streamlined planning process to help councils rezone land; we’re well under way in developing the replacement for the Resource Management Act (RMA); we’re removing interest deductibility for existing rental properties while incentivising investment in new builds; we’ve had Minister Woods’ announcement of the $3.8 billion infrastructure fund to unlock a mix of private sector and Government-led developments; we’re progressing more fast-track consent processes under the COVID recovery Act; and, for example, just this week I put forward a housing development of 1,000 houses south of Christchurch for fast-track consideration.

💬 Nicola Willis: How many of the 30 or so projects listed for fast-tracking under the COVID recovery Act have actually been approved?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: A minority of them, because the main delay is the delay by applicants filing their applications once they’ve been given approval to use the process. There have been no undue delays in consideration by any of the panels in respect of applications that have been filed by applicants, and, indeed, there are statutory time frames that guide those processes.

💬 Nicola Willis: Can he confirm his reported statement that his programme of RMA reform is unlikely to affect the housing market until possibly 2024 or 2025?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m not sure that those were my words. The point I was making was that we can’t wait upon RMA reform—that’s not going to be finished for a couple of years—to respond to the current crisis. That’s why we’ve done all those other measures that I listed in the answer to the primary question, which have been enabled under existing legislation plus amendments that we’ve made, including the fast-track consenting model. In respect of that, I would note that there are mixed views within society and, indeed, I’ve received representations—as have other members of Parliament—from the member’s colleagues in the Opposition, opposing the use of the fast-track processes.

💬 Nicola Willis: Why won’t he act with urgency and legislate interim measures to reduce the RMA delays he describes, and to release new homes for development that are so desperately needed right now?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Well it’s not correct to say that we haven’t. I’ve actually listed some of the legislative interventions—

💬 Hon Member: You haven’t!

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, the member should have listened because I have, including the fast-tracked consenting that I mentioned. I think the best approach for the Opposition would be, instead of opposing things like the urban development legislation that they voted against, to back the Government’s programme and other legislative interventions that we will bring in due course.

Question No. 9—Agriculture

9. to the Minister of Agriculture: What advice, if any, has he received on the economic impacts of international markets rejecting New Zealand products due to glyphosate residues?

Kia ora. I received advice in February that Japan had implemented 100 percent testing for glyphosate in all honey from New Zealand. Any consignment that does not pass the test on arrival in Japan must either be reshipped or destroyed. I understand that a very small number of consignments of honey had been directly affected as a result. Since 21 January, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has introduced new requirements for glyphosate testing here prior to export to Japan. If the test results do not comply, MPI will not issue export certification for that consignment of honey. I have not had such advice relating to any other international markets.

💬 Teanau Tuiono: Is he concerned that the continued use of Roundup and other glyphosate products in New Zealand is causing economic and reputational damage to our growing $425 million honey industry, following these rejections of exports by Japanese authorities?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I take New Zealand’s reputation as a healthy, ethical food producer very, very seriously. It’s important to note that in regards to residues of glyphosate, it’s not considered a food safety issue, but we are aware that internationally there’s much discussion on this. But can we reassure people about residue levels. For example, a five-year-old child who was consuming honey with 0.1 milligrams per kilogram of glyphosate residues, which is the default maximum residue level in New Zealand, would need to eat roughly 230 kilograms of honey every day for the rest of their life to reach the World Health Organization acceptable daily intake for glyphosate. I’m just saying that we recognise it is an issue but it’s not a food safety issue.

💬 Teanau Tuiono: Is he concerned that New Zealand is falling behind international practice, given markets we export to, including Japan and the European Union, have stronger standards regulating glyphosate in honey than we do?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I’m aware that we do use glyphosate across our agricultural sectors. We don’t at the same levels that they use in countries where there are genetically modified organism crops that allow the widespread use of glyphosate on food crops. We don’t allow that. So we have a far lower rate of utilisation, usually for weed control. Regarding honey, it is difficult to know exactly where the bees fly, and I think the challenge for the apiculture industry is to try and ensure that they don’t end up with residues from sprayed areas, like alongside the roadsides, that end up in the honey. That’s why we are testing prior to any export.

💬 Teanau Tuiono: Following his February statement relating to mānuka honey that we need to “ensure it’s made to the high standards that international customers expect”, is he concerned that international customers will stop buying New Zealand primary products if we continue to allow the use of glyphosate; if not, why not?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Most countries around the world do use glyphosate. We’re aware of the European approach to this that is still working its way through. We’re aware of Japan’s sensitivities to it. We will test any products that we think may be contaminated or have a maximum residue limit level that is above any level that might be considered safe.

💬 Teanau Tuiono: Will he consider placing new restrictions on the use of glyphosate to protect the international future of New Zealand’s primary sector producers?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: At this stage, we have no proposals to restrict it other than to encourage farmers to use it carefully, to make sure they don’t spray in the wind so that there’s a flow-on effect to any neighbour, to make sure that—we’re cautious with the use of any chemical in this country. We have robust regimes. We must keep them and ensure that we can claim—and rightfully support the science that says—that we’re the best producers of food in the world.

Question No. 10—Police

10. to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has she seen regarding Operation Tauwhiro?

I’ve received a report from police advising that in just the first seven weeks of Operation Tauwhiro—police’s major operation to disrupt and prevent organised crime—police have seized 237 firearms, seized $1.8 million in cash and assets, seized 4,712 grams of meth, and charged 202 people. I’m sure all members of this House will join me in congratulating our police on their fantastic work keeping our community safe.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: Has the Minister seen any other reports on police disrupting the illicit drugs trade in New Zealand?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Yes. I’ve seen reports that police and customs have intercepted a package at the international mail centre in Auckland that was found to contain up to 1.5 kilograms of liquid cocaine. Police then executed a search warrant at the Christchurch address, where cocaine and a significant amount of cash were located. I’ve also seen reports from Waikato, where police have intercepted the transport of half a kilogram of methamphetamine and $10,000 in cash by organised crime groups.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: How has the Government supported police to disrupt and prevent organised crime?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: We’ve supported police, investing $450 million since we came to office, by putting more officers on the beat—2,500 new constables, 1,400 new fulltime-equivalents, 700 alone will be focused on organised crime. We’ve banned military-style semi-automatic weapons, magazines, and parts; taken 62,000 prohibited firearms out of circulation; and passed the Arms Legislation Bill.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: What is the Minister doing to stop racial profiling of Māori in the New Zealand Police, including in Operation Tauwhiro and the latest example of officers unlawfully photographing Māori?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: While it’s distressing to know that there are instances where the photographing of people is not happening according to what I would expect and what police know to be within the law, what I am confident about is that police are addressing areas of bias within the police, looking at processes and persons of interest in that regard, and they’re working very hard to do this.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was quite clear around racial profiling. It was not about unconscious bias. What does unconscious bias mean? Does that mean bias whilst asleep?

Question No. 11—Health

11. to the Minister of Health: Had only $67.4 million been spent by 28 February 2021 of the $145.3 million allocated in 2019 for years 1 and 2 for the new Expanding Access and Choice of Primary Mental Health and Addiction Support service, and, for the same period, had only $8.4 million of $20.1 million been spent on the Preventing Suicide and Supporting People Bereaved by Suicide initiative?

I can’t confirm that those figures for that period are correct. What I can confirm is that in relation to the access and choice programme, as at 31 March this year, $102 million has been committed in contract down to 30 June this year, and in relation to suicide prevention activities, roughly $10 million has been committed in contract. I’ve been advised that there are a number of procurement processes that are either under way or recently completed which will see additional funding committed and spent this financial year.

💬 Matt Doocey: Why can’t the Minister confirm those numbers are correct, when they were his answers to written parliamentary questions to me?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member is confusing, I think, when the Ministry of Health enters into a contract that they’re legally obliged to follow through down to the 30 June period, and somehow thinking that its obligation to continue to pay, for example, monthly payments invoiced to it for the access and choice programme somehow doesn’t exist or is not an obligation on them. If he is going to use the $145 million 30 June figure, then the correct comparison to make is the commitments the Ministry of Health has actually entered into, which, as at this point, are $102 million down to that period.

💬 Matt Doocey: Why has the promoting wellbeing in primary and intermediate schools programme announced in Budget 2019, that was to have spent $1.4 million in its first two years, spent no money 21 months after the announcement was made?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That figure is correct, but as the member will see, out of a total programme of $455 million over four years, that is a small amount of spending. Other spending and commitments have been made in our schools and for young people, and those announcements have been made over the last few months.

💬 Matt Doocey: Why has the Government, across 15 mental health initiatives announced in Budget 2019, as of March this year only spent $126.7 million of the allocated spend—after two years—of $247.7 million?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I can’t confirm the accuracy of those figures. What I can say is that this is a Government that inherited a mental health service across this country that had been neglected for nine years, had been run down, and had left people desperate. This Government had the gumption to step up, take a stocktake, and in 2019 committed $1.9 billion, an unprecedented amount of money, into an area that desperately needed it. I stand here proud, along with former colleagues, former Ministers of Health of this Government, of the commitment that we have made to seriously address the gaps in mental health that have been left by that previous Government.

💬 Matt Doocey: How can New Zealanders have confidence in this Government when promised mental health funding is underspent, while reported wait times are increasing?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member will know that this programme of reform, a four- to five-year programme of reform, started in July 2019. It was heavily disrupted last year because of COVID, to the point where we had service providers who had entered into contracts ask for the implementation dates or the start dates of their services to be delayed because they couldn’t recruit people and they couldn’t commence their services. So it is not surprising that there has been some delay in getting the full volume of services expected to be in place by now. But that’s what happens when you inherit nine years of neglect in a service and you have to step up and do something really serious about it.

💬 Matt Doocey: Supplementary?

💬 SPEAKER: Sorry—no, no, the member’s run out. I think the member knows that, doesn’t he? Question No. 12—Steph Lewis. Nice try.

Question No. 12—Agriculture

12. to the Minister of Agriculture: What announcement has he made about live animal exports?

This morning, I announced that the export of livestock by sea will cease, following a transition period of up to two years. The export of livestock from New Zealand has been a feature of our farming systems for a long time, but concerns about the risks to New Zealand’s reputation from this trade have been steadily increasing, which is why in 2019 we began a review of livestock exports. The tragic sinking of the Gulf Livestock 1 ship in 2020 with the loss of 40 lives and many thousands of livestock brought those dangers to a head, and we introduced a temporary ban on livestock exports while the Heron review recommended improvements to our system. Although many of these have been implemented, there remains an ongoing level of concern with the welfare of these animals while at sea for up to three weeks. This Government had to act and it has done.

💬 Steph Lewis: Why is the Government banning the export of livestock by sea?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Over recent years, we’ve seen some of the reports from these ships, many of which—about 80 percent of which—are not designed for live exports, where conditions on board have led to many adverse animal welfare outcomes. While I acknowledge that this trade has been able to generate additional revenue for some farmers, ultimately, we aren’t able to guarantee the welfare of these animals once they’re at sea, and that is an unacceptable risk to New Zealand’s reputation. New Zealand must stay ahead of the curve in a world where animal welfare is under increasing scrutiny if we truly want to be the most ethical producers of the finest food in the world.

💬 Steph Lewis: Why has the Government allowed a two-year transition period?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The transition period of up to two years will allow affected businesses both in New Zealand and around the world the time to wind down the trade and adjust their operations. This is a complex process to unwind due to factors such as existing contracts, business planning, and breeding cycles, so the final exact length of the transition period will be determined pending further advice that I’ll receive from the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). In the meantime, I’ve also asked MPI to provide advice on possible improvements to animal welfare on the ships during the transition period.

Questions to Members

Question No. 1—Electoral (Integrity Repeal) Amendment Bill

1. CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi) to the Member in charge of the Electoral (Integrity Repeal) Amendment Bill: What reports has he seen on his Electoral (Integrity Repeal) Amendment Bill?

I have seen a report from the shadow Attorney-General on my bill that concludes that its passage would ensure our Electoral Act complies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. This report is consistent with the report I have also seen from Professor Geiringer of Victoria University, New Zealand’s renowned expert on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, that the 2018 law changes breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in respect of freedom of speech and freedom of association.

💬 Chris Penk: Has the member seen any other reports on the bill that raise concerns about the effect of the law on New Zealand’s democracy?

Yes, I have. I have seen a report on my bill by 23 legal academics from five law faculties, four departments of politics—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I just want an assurance from the member that this is not a submission on the bill—that it is a report.

Yes, it is a submission from those 23 legal academics, and—

💬 SPEAKER: Well, thank you.

—Mr Speaker, I’d be delighted if both yourself and the House would read that submission. It shows how important my bill is.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think the fact that I recognised it might have meant that I have. That concludes oral questions—

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to table the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report on the Electoral (Integrity Repeal) Amendment Bill by the shadow Attorney-General.

💬 SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There’s none. It will be tabled.

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