Oral Questions

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

According to Statistics New Zealand, electronic card transactions were up in March compared to the previous quarter, showing that New Zealanders are continuing to show confidence in the economy. This was better than expectations, given the increased alert levels in the earlier part of the month. Responding to the Statistics New Zealand report, the ANZ Bank noted that there were several pluses on the retail spending front, including the improved balance sheet position of households, high levels of employment, and low interest rates.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen on Government support for the New Zealand economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Last month, when Auckland went into alert level 3 for a week, the Government provided a wage subsidy to help affected businesses. I can inform the House today that 52,272 applications were approved for the wage subsidy, and more than $178 million was paid out to those businesses.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What other support has been provided to businesses during recent COVID resurgences?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government created the Resurgence Support Payment to assist businesses with one-off costs during alert level rises. Taking into account both the increased alert level events this year, 79,384 applications were received, and just over $198 million was paid out, with roughly 75 percent of that going to the Auckland region. While we in New Zealand enjoy a relatively normal way of life compared to our friends overseas, we do know that this can change quickly, and the Government remains ready to support businesses and workers should alert levels have to increase again.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. In particular, I stand by the Government’s response to COVID-19, that has meant a record number of people have moved off a benefit and into employment in the March quarter, with 32,880 people moving into work in the first three months of 2021. I’m sure the Minister for Social Development and Employment will have more to say about this matter.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Have any DHBs been advised that they will be consolidated as part of her Government’s proposed health sector restructuring, and, if so, which?

As the member knows, a question as detailed as that is best directed towards the Minister of Health. What I can say is, the Government is working through the recommendations of the Health and Disability System Review, and we’ll have more to say about the future of the health system in the coming weeks.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Has Cabinet and Treasury signed off on the cost for the proposed health sector restructuring, and, if so, what is the estimated cost?

The member will be aware that matters that are pertaining to the Budget are Budget confidential until Budget day. Clearly, the full costs of an overall review of the health system are expensive. But the member will need to wait until Budget day to see some of what the Government plans to do.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Has she been advised by Dr Ashley Bloomfield about any risks a restructuring of the Ministry of Health may have for our coronavirus response?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, I regularly meet and talk with Dr Bloomfield. My Minister of Health is the person primarily dealing with the restructuring process, but I am not aware of any such concerns.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Will she delay any health sector restructuring for at least two years, given the health sector is currently focused on rolling out the coronavirus vaccine across the entire country?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, I have a great deal of confidence in our health system to be able to continue New Zealand’s strong response to COVID-19, as well as getting on with the job of making sure we have improved health services right across New Zealand.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Will she apologise to the managed isolation and quarantine worker she accosted in this House yesterday, given she has since stated the Government is partly to blame?

I utterly reject the word used in that question. The Prime Minister has already spoken today about the fact that the language she used yesterday may have been a little bit blunt. But the facts that lie behind it remain the same.

Question No. 3—Research, Science and Innovation

3. to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: What recent announcements has she made about strengthening Māori knowledge in science and innovation?

Last week, I announced the 16 projects receiving a total of $3.9 million in funding from the 2021 round of the Vision Mātauranga Capability Fund, each of which will strengthen Māori knowledge, capabilities, skills, and networks in the science and innovation system. Supporting our Māori researchers is essential for the aspirations of individuals, whānau, Māori communities, Māori organisations, and New Zealand, and this Government is proud to stand in support of these projects.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: What are some of the successful projects?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: With $250,000 of funding from the fund, Manaaki Whenua will partner with the Ngāi Tahu Māori Rock Art Trust to investigate the ecology of the 14 nationally culturally significant rock art sites around Ōpihi in South Canterbury, to tell us more about tīpuna and our past. Te Ruapekapeka Trust and the Victoria University of Wellington will also receive $250,000 to digitally construct aspects of the Ruapekapeka heritage pā site using virtual reality technology.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: Why is it important that we support a kaupapa Māori approach to research, science, and innovation?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: A kaupapa Māori approach to research, development, and innovation will see impact and growth within iwi and Māori organisations, as well as strengthening science and innovation for all New Zealanders. Ensuring cultural knowledge is maintained, protected, and still owned by Māori and iwi will also preserve the uniqueness of Aotearoa and the richness of our cultural heritage.

Question No. 4—Social Development and Employment

4. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What new steps, if any, will she take to end hardship in Aotearoa?

This Government is committed to addressing poverty and hardship in Aotearoa. We are the first Government to measure child poverty and hold ourselves accountable to addressing it. In our first hundred days last term, we invested $5.5 billion into our Families Package to boost the income of low and middle income families. We’ve since lifted main benefits and indexed them to wages, raised abatement thresholds, and invested significantly into supporting people into work. We know we have much more to do. We have a programme of work which we are conducting on the back of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s report. New steps will come out of this work, as outlined in our Cabinet paper, and any announcements will be made in due course.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she comfortable with the goal of the Social Security Act to “alleviate” hardship, or should we be aiming to eliminate hardship?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think that all of us in this House would like to see the elimination of poverty and hardship in Aotearoa New Zealand, but what we also understand is that we need to take steps towards addressing it and be focused on reducing it if we’re going to make the progress and the traction that we all want to make. There’s no way of just clicking our fingers and getting to the point where poverty and hardship are eliminated in this country. This Government is committed to making progress and has already taken serious steps and will continue to do so.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does the Government believe, then, that the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s recommendations to ensure everyone can live with dignity can be implemented by amending the current Social Security Act, or will the whole Act need rewriting?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Welfare Expert Advisory Group was very clear about wanting to change the principles of the Social Security Act, and that is one of the recommendations that we keep in mind. But if we are to change the principles to the Social Security Act, then we do need to make sure that the whole Social Security Act aligns with those principles. Until we make some of the other fundamental changes that have been recommended by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group, we are not at that point.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she concerned that the increasing number of hardship assistance grants in the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) quarterly report shows that whānau and children don’t have enough food in Aotearoa?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We have already recognised that income adequacy in the welfare system is something that we need to address. It is in the Labour Party manifesto, and we’re taking steps towards addressing it. We also recognise the fact that food security in New Zealand is an issue, which is why we invested last year, I think, $32 million towards our food distribution network. There is food in abundance in this country, but it isn’t necessarily getting to where it needs to go to, so it is about making sure that whānau and communities are fed, whilst at the same time doing something to address the large amount of food that goes into our landfills and is wasted.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Would increasing benefits reduce the need to deliver so many food grants; if not, why not?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I said, we are committed to continuing to address income adequacy in the welfare system. I will say that part of the reason why food grants have gone up—acknowledging that there are families experiencing hardship, and that’s the first and foremost reason. But secondly is because we have changed the culture of the Ministry of Social Development. We have been focused on making sure that our Work and Income offices, our MSD staff, give New Zealanders the support that they are entitled to when they go into those offices for help.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What is the Government’s time frame, in months and years, to take action on the medium to long term recommendations in the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s report?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: When we talk about medium to long term, generally we’re talking about a three- to five-year programme of work, but we also recognise that change and improvements to the welfare system will need to continue to be ongoing. We’re not going to get to the end of a work programme and look at our welfare system and think it’s perfect. Any Government that’s in place will need to continue to improve the way in which we support some of New Zealand’s most vulnerable people.

Question No. 5—COVID-19 Response

Before we move to question No. 5, I just want to note that the member asking the question has written to me, in the same vein as he asked as shadow Leader of the House, with regard to a select committee meeting that was held yesterday, at which this particular topic was canvassed. I’ve had a look at the select committee, the times involved, and the ability for the Opposition to answer questions, and have come to the conclusion that what occurred at that select committee yesterday was not in compliance with the spirit of the last Standing Orders report and assurances that have been given as to the ability to ask questions at the Health Committee on the COVID issue. At the time, the Business Committee made a previous decision not to set up the Epidemic Response Committee once again. In light of that, and given the fact that the average number of supplementaries available to members on a Thursday in the Opposition is four, I am going to grant an extra four supplementary questions on this question today. So Mr Bishop has up to eight to use.

5. to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: How many people working in a managed isolation and quarantine facility who have been required to get a COVID-19 test under the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Required Testing) orders have not been compliant with these orders in getting a test since their inception, and does he stand by his statement on non-compliance that “it does not appear to be a large-scale problem”?

In the past week, 2,755 staff working in managed isolation facilities and 241 workers in quarantine facilities were tested for COVID-19, compared to the around 4,500 people who are required to be tested on a weekly or a fortnightly basis under the order. That testing data has been reporting a relatively consistent pattern since the order was put in place, demonstrating that the vast majority of the workforce are being tested as required. It hasn’t been possible in the preparation for questions to provide the data the member has requested, back to when the order was first put in place, in the form that the member has asked for it, because that would require significant data-matching across a number of different records and reconciliation of those records. Responsibility for compliance with the testing order rests with individuals and with their employers.

💬 Chris Bishop: For clarity, is he saying that it is not possible for the Government to say, since mandatory testing began, the number of people who have missed at least one of the fortnightly or weekly COVID-19 tests they’re required to undertake?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think one of the important points to note here is that people may or may not need to be tested in a given fortnight or a given week depending on when they worked. The records for that sit with the employer. The Government does not collect all of that information.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why does the Government not collect all the information that he’s just referred to, so that it would be possible for him to come to the House now, in April 2021, and tell the House how many people in total, since mandatory testing began, have not been compliant with the law?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because of the diversity of the workforce that we’re talking about. For example, if an electrician is called upon to do an urgent piece of work within a managed isolation facility, the Government would not necessarily record all of that information.

💬 Chris Bishop: How can the diversity of the workforce possibly be an excuse when the Government knows—or, at least, should know—who is working in managed isolation and quarantine facilities on a fortnightly basis and knows, or should know, who is subject to the COVID-19 testing orders?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Up until recently, each managed isolation facility managed a sign-in and sign-out system individual to that facility. Since earlier this year, a “who’s on site” digitised system has been rolled out across all of the managed isolation facilities. That has recorded who’s on site at any given time. However, it would appear that there have been some issues with whether people have all been using that. In the case of case B, for example, it would appear that the person had not always been signing in when they had been at work.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why has the Government not been checking through officials and Government departments to make sure that employers and their employees are getting the required tests that are legally obliged to do?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The managed isolation team have been checking with the employers to make sure that they have been keeping records of when their staff have been tested, as they are required to do under the order, and the feedback that they had from the employer of case B was that those records were in place, that they were recording that case B had been tested. Case B has been, it would appear, supplying incorrect information to their employer about whether or not they had actually been being tested.

💬 Chris Bishop: What has been happening in the last two months in relation to the checking and auditing of employers at the border in relation to the Prime Minister’s remarks from two months ago that the Ministry of Health does have the ability to get an insight into whether or not testing is indeed taking place and to troubleshoot it if it’s not?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think the member didn’t listen to my first answer, where I set out exactly what testing has been taking place and the data that we have been working with. We do not have ankle bracelets on every person that works in managed isolation to identify when they have been at work and therefore when they are required to be tested. We do check with employers to make sure that they are keeping records of that information. It would appear in this instance that there has not been accurate record-keeping. That is partly because the person has not been supplying correct information.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why following the release of the Simpson/Roche report last September and the February Auckland cluster with the LSG Sky Chefs worker has the Government only just now moved to mandate the use of a centralised register?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We have been looking at the ways that we can improve the systems. One of them was to mandate the use of the register. The other is to extend the testing order to an extra workforce, which we have also been doing. Inside all of that, we’ve also been considering the frequency of the tests. So there’s a variety of issues that have all been reflected and recorded in the latest order. The process of going through that does take some time.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why is a mandatory register at the border only being implemented now, at the end of April 2021, when mandatory testing has been under way at the border since September last year?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because the law is clear: employers are ones who are responsible for keeping records of their employees’ testing. That is the legal requirement.

💬 Chris Bishop: How is it acceptable that a worker at the front line of our border response can go six months without being tested for COVID-19 and nobody notices or does anything to make sure they get a test?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It isn’t.

Question No. 6—Social Development and Employment

6. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she seen on the number of people receiving financial assistance from MSD?

The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) released the March quarter benefit report today, and it shows 32,880 people exited the benefit and moved into work this year. This number is the largest number of people moving into work since electronic records began in 1996. The previous biggest quarter was March 2000. Today’s figures also show a fall of 23,563 from the previous quarter. There are now 365,937 people receiving a main benefit in New Zealand, much lower than most pundits predicted. This Government is committed to getting people into work, and today’s figures show the interventions we have made through the COVID-19 crisis are working.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: How do these statistics relate to seasonal trends?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The fall is in line with the trend we generally see in the March quarter. However, signs are encouraging, with 10,670 more people moving off benefit than in the same period in 2019. The statistics for the next quarter will provide us with a more complete insight, but indications are positive. This positivity is reflected in the latest Jobs Online data, which shows vacancies increased 73.7 percent compared to a year earlier. Vacancies are up across all industries, with most growth being seen in healthcare, manufacturing, construction, and hospitality.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: What interventions did the Government make to get people into work?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We know that the longer people remain on a benefit, the more difficult it becomes for them to re-enter the labour market, so early interventions are vital. That’s why the Government invested in the wage subsidy to keep people in work, and invested an additional $150 million to increase MSD’s employment and financial services as part of our COVID-19 recovery package. We’ve continued to invest in employment outcomes along the way, with additional funding for Flexi-wage and bespoke interventions such as Apprenticeship Boost, Mana in Mahi, and He Poutama Rangatahi.

Question No. 7—Education

7. to the Minister of Education: How many schools, if any, had fewer than 20 percent of their students attend regularly in 2020, using the Ministry of Education’s definition of regular attendance?

I’m advised that, in 2020, 12 primary schools and five secondary schools had fewer than 20 percent of their students attending 90 percent of the time, which is the ministry’s definition of regular attendance.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How is it possible that 17 schools in this country have fewer than one in five of their students attending regularly?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In preparation for the member’s question I asked for a list of all of the schools that fit that category. In terms of primary schools, by and large those primary schools are all reasonably small primary schools. Therefore, it only takes a small number of students to be away more than 10 percent of the time for them to fall into the category that the member has mentioned. In terms of the secondary schools, I would note that there are fewer secondary schools in that category in 2020 than there were in 2017 when that member was in Government.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How many attendance officers do we have across the country to deal with the large number of truant children?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: About the same number that there were when that member was in Government.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: What does it say about the Government’s priorities in education that it allowed there to be just one attendance officer covering 80 schools in West Auckland in the middle of last year?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I would refer the member back to the reorganisation of the Attendance Service, undertaken by the last Government in 2015, which determined where the attendance resources were located, and under contracts signed by his Government.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has he considered changing his first priority in the National Education and Learning Priorities from “Ensure places of learning are safe, inclusive and free from racism, discrimination and bullying” to ensuring the kids are at school?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course, the people who ultimately determine whether kids go to school or not are their parents.

💬 Marja Lubeck: What additional support has the Government provided to support student attendance?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Following COVID-19, the Government set aside the Urgent Response Fund to help schools to reengage students with their learning, including to address the attendance challenges that have been evident and growing over some time. The Budget also provided an additional $2.5 million for the Attendance Service—one of the first increases for some time—to ensure that there are more people working with those who are at risk of disengaging or who have become unenrolled.

Question No. 8—Education

8. to the Minister of Education: What action is the Government taking to support Auckland schools to provide learning environments for their students that are warm, comfortable, and fit for purpose?

Three Auckland schools in urgent need of an upgrade are benefiting as part of the Government’s $1.3 billion nationwide school redevelopment programme. May Road School, Onehunga Primary School, and Albany Primary School are getting new classrooms to replace those in poor condition, and they will benefit from investments in projects to support expected increases in student numbers.

💬 Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What assistance is Onehunga Primary School receiving?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A very good question. Onehunga Primary School, in desperate need of further teaching space, is getting a new three-level block with 14 teaching spaces, a library, and an admin space that includes four new roll growth classrooms, at a budget of $14.5 million, with construction getting under way this year.

💬 Hon Michael Wood: What assistance is May Road School receiving?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Another excellent question. May Road School is benefiting from a $9 million investment to build a three-storey, 15-classroom block, including eight roll growth classrooms and seven redeveloped classrooms, new car parks, and a safe drop-off and pick-up area for its years 1 to 4 students. Construction is expected to get under way next year.

💬 Marja Lubeck: What assistance is Albany Primary School receiving?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Albany Primary School in Auckland’s North Shore will receive 20 new classrooms to replace ageing facilities and to cater for growing student numbers—[Interruption] They don’t seem to like the new classrooms, on the other side. Eight of these new classrooms are roll growth classrooms. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order!

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The project’s in its early planning stages. The time frames for that one are still to be finalised.

💬 SPEAKER: There are a lot of questions coming from there. Does anyone want to stand up and ask one? Apparently not.

Question No. 9—Housing (Homelessness)

9. to the Associate Minister of Housing (Homelessness): How many written briefings, if any, has she received from officials recommending that the Government focus on exiting Emergency Housing Special Needs Grant accommodation and what concerns, if any, does she have about emergency accommodation?

on behalf of the Associate Minister of Housing (Homelessness): I have received six briefings that reflect the—

💬 Nicola Willis: Why’d you transfer?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. Nicola Willis, you’ve been around this place for a very long time. You do understand how transfers work, and the thing that you’ll really understand is that I don’t do them. Start again, please.

On behalf of the Associate Minister of Housing (Homelessness), I have received six briefings that reflect the Government priority to reduce motel use as quickly as possible while ensuring that people are safely housed. Of course we have concerns regarding the use of motels as a form of accommodation; however, it is better than people living on the streets, in tents, and in cars. We know there is more to do. People who are experiencing homelessness have a right to shelter, to safety, to dignity, and to support. That is exactly why we have a Homelessness Action Plan and are rolling out the largest public housing build programme in a generation, because the best option is having long-term, stable accommodation options for people. What I’m also concerned about is that it took until 2016 for the previous National Government to finally recognise that people living on the streets and in cars wasn’t acceptable before they introduced the emergency housing special needs grant that the member refers to.

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Nicola Willis: Has she seen advice from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (MHUD), who advise in this document that they are not able to regulate for quality standards in emergency accommodation, and it is, therefore, acceptable that 4,000 families are currently raising their children in these motels?

On behalf of the Associate Minister of Housing, I can’t see the document waved across the House by the member, but I am familiar with advice that both the Associate Minister and my colleague, the Minister of Housing, have indeed seen, that differentiates very clearly between the transitional housing that is administered by MHUD and the accommodation that is undertaken by people through emergency special needs grants through the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). We currently have a programme of work under way with MSD in areas of the highest use of motels to bring those two pieces together, because we do agree these are not the places to raise children. But I also note that it wasn’t until 2016 that the previous Government took this seriously. I’m proud of the fact that we’ve doubled transitional—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! The member knows that the tail end of both her answers are out of order. Doing it once is careless; doing it twice is getting very close to being in trouble.

💬 Nicola Willis: Is she aware of answers to written questions from Minister Sepuloni that show the Government does not centrally record reported incidents of family harm or criminal activity occurring in emergency housing, and, if so, how does she know these motels are safe places for children to be?

I suggest that member put the question to the Minister that she’s referring to in the beginning of her question.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does she agree with advice provided to the Minister of Housing by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development about emergency housing in Rotorua that “The concentration of some lower-end emergency housing motels and the night shelter in the CBD is creating risks to public safety. At the same time, individuals are not getting the support they need.”?

On behalf of the Associate Minister, yes, I have concerns about the situation in Rotorua. I’m also aware that the Minister of Housing does as well. This was exactly why, in the last couple of weeks, we asked officials to convene in Rotorua along with iwi and along with members of the local body authority in Rotorua to collectively find solutions, and that work is progressing well. We are a Government that is taking action on homelessness.

💬 Nicola Willis: Which specific emergency accommodation providers has she visited since becoming Minister, and can she guarantee to this House that they are safe places for children to be raised?

On behalf of the Associate Minister, I invite that member to put that in writing, and I will get back to her.

Question No. 10—Building and Construction

10. to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent reports has the Minister seen regarding the Construction Skills Action Plan?

I’ve seen reports that the Construction Skills Action Plan, which addresses skills and labour shortages in the construction industry, has delivered early and, indeed, more than doubled our target of supporting a further 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 various Government initiatives. Our building sector has a big job ahead of it, and the success of the action plan is another example of this Government supporting the sector to deliver for New Zealand.

💬 Paul Eagle: How has the Construction Skills Action Plan surpassed its target?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The plan was a three-year programme of work that was expected to deliver by October 2021. However, thanks to a strong performance of programmes within the plan, like Mana in Mahi, which has placed over 2,200 people in the construction sector; skills for industry, supporting another 1,600; and growing careers and credentials, another 5,200, we are exceeding our targets and delivering for the sector.

💬 Paul Eagle: How has the building sector responded to Government initiatives like the Construction Skills Action Plan?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: We’re already seeing the building and construction sector respond. Statistics New Zealand data has shown strong growth in the sector despite COVID-19. The most recent household labour force survey shows an annual increase of 21,000 employed in the construction industry. It’s also encouraging to note that 5,800 of this increase are women.

Question No. 11—Energy and Resources

11. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What advice has she received in relation to her statement, “I want to know what, if anything, might be done to moderate wholesale prices without increasing the risk of power shortages”, and what advice has she received on the current risk of power shortages in New Zealand?

I’ve received regular and ongoing advice in relation to wholesale electricity prices, as well as the broader security of supply issues in relation to the dry year we are currently facing. I’ve also met with officials from the Electricity Authority (EA) and the Gas Industry Company and directed them to undertake work on the matter, and Transpower is now providing daily updates on its website about security of supply and electricity risk. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is also standing up an inter-agency response group to monitor the situation and provide advice. But what I would note is that this is not a new issue. We have been here before. The market is behaving as it is expected, as it did in other dry years. For example, in 2008, wholesale prices were at $475 per megawatt hour, while in 2012 they were at $310. We’re currently seeing spikes in excess of $350 per megawatt hour. We are not at the stage of standing up a conservation campaign, which for New Zealanders would be quite similar to what Aucklanders experienced with water restrictions. However, I can assure that member that I am monitoring the situation very closely.

💬 Barbara Kuriger: Did the advice say that New Zealand would be at lower risk of power shortage if we had maintained confidence and investment in the gasfields we have?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No, it certainly didn’t, because what officials know is that any exploration that would’ve been issued after the 2018 cessation of the issuing of new exploration permits would take around a decade to come on stream. Officials also know that since we made that announcement, there has been over a billion dollars’ worth of investment in existing exploration fields.

💬 Barbara Kuriger: What is her response to Carl Findlater of Findlater Sawmilling, who wrote to her on Monday stating that despite high demand for timber, electricity price increases and a toxic operating environment meant continued operation was untenable?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What we are seeing this year is an increase in the number of industrial users who are exposed on the hedge market. That’s around 60 percent exposure as compared with a normal year, which would be around 40. Industry analysts think that a large number of industrial users made the decision to wait and see what the ultimate decisions around Rio Tinto and their future at Tīwai Point would be and whether there would be cheaper electricity available in the future. That hasn’t come to pass, and, as the member knows, we are currently experiencing a dry year. That, coupled with some issues around the production of Pohokura gasfield, has led to this, but I can assure that industrial user and all users of energy in New Zealand that this is a situation that the Government is taking seriously; it is monitoring. But I do note to that member that we are not even at the 1 percent risk on the curve yet.

💬 Barbara Kuriger: What is her response to Major Electricity Users’ Group chairman John Harbord, who stated, “The reality is if the prices continue on the pathway they’re on, there will be a number of major industrial operations in the country that simply won’t be in business any more. We’re looking at the loss of thousands of jobs and the hollowing out of New Zealand’s manufacturing capability”?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: My response to all energy users and the Major Electricity Users’ Group is that this is a situation that we are taking seriously. It is a situation that is not unprecedented or even unexpected in New Zealand. Dry-year risk is always something that sits out there in our energy system and is precisely the reason why this Government has invested in exploring what it is that we need to do to address the long-term problem of dry-year risk, particularly around looking at the option of pumped hydro. But I also would remind that member that the EA’s stress testing for major electricity users actually—the stress tests are at unit prices of $400 a megawatt hour for a period over three months and, indeed, eight hours over a winter period at $10,000 a megawatt hour. This is within the parameters of what our electricity system is set up to deliver.

💬 Barbara Kuriger: When she said at the time of the oil and gas ban in 2018, “I don’t want to see an abrupt transition that leaves industry stagnant, communities without a future and individuals without hope.”, does she believe a fourfold increase in electricity prices in just three years is an abrupt transition?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I would caution that member about repeating lines that were found, during the election campaign when her party tried to run them, to be false. This is a serious discussion, and it is one that, actually, we need to look at. What we have—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. Again, I think she’s tried to dance around it, but my interpretation is that the member, in the statement that she made, made an inappropriate reflection on the member who asked the question. She will withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Sorry—point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m happy to withdraw and apologise, but I do want—as a point of clarification, what I was doing was referencing an Australian Associated Press fact-check finding that occurred during the general election.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: Continue with the answer.

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I would caution that member about is leaping to conclusions that have not been founded in the situation that we are facing. The situation that we are facing today is the product of a dry year coupled with a situation around Pohokura field. All expectations within the industry is that the gas situation will resolve in the coming months. This is a situation that we need to treat with concern, but we also need to assure the public there is no need to panic. I am more than happy to provide that member with a briefing around the facts if she would like it.