Oral Questions

1. to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): Are there effective rules in place to ensure people who rent can find an affordable home; if not, what advice has the Government requested on potential new rules to ensure affordable rentals?

on behalf of the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): Yes, although I acknowledge that there are some people who are having difficulty finding an affordable rental property to call home during the housing crisis that has built up over the last decade. This Government has made a number of changes to support renters to find affordable accommodation and to improve their security and rights in their homes. These changes include limiting rent increases to once a year, banning rental bidding, banning letting fees, the introduction of the healthy homes standard, the removal of no-cause termination, increasing accommodation supplement rates for the first time since 2005, and allowing renters to request rent reduction through the Tenancy Tribunal if they think their rents are too high. We will continue to monitor the rental market closely.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is that system working, however, to make renting affordable for people, with rents rising by 50 percent since 2010 but wages only rising by 20 percent?

On behalf of the Associate Minister, as I said in my answer to the primary, Ministers will continue to monitor the rental market. We have looked closely at the empirical evidence of what we’ve seen over the last 12 months. So for the year to March 2021, we saw a 1.6 percent increase in rents across the country, although we do acknowledge that some of that time was the period of time when rents couldn’t be put up. So, adjusted, it’s probably more like a 2 to 5 percent increase across the country. We are monitoring that situation.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does she accept that the current system simply allows rents to continue increasing to whatever landlords want to charge?

On behalf of the Associate Minister, one of the reasons we do monitor rents closely is to build that empirical base—for example, when we made a number of the changes that I outlined in my primary answer, such as limiting rent increases to once a year and banning letting fees, there was a lot of narrative from a number of interest groups that rents were going to go sky-high. We have monitored that and we have seen that that has not been the case. We saw a 1.6 percent increase in rents last year, adjusted, as I said, around 2 to 5 percent.

Brooke van Velden: Has the Government also received advice that introducing rent controls could reduce supply, quality of housing, and lead to discrimination of tenants?

On behalf of the Associate Minister, the member would have seen the advice that we proactively released last year that showed that there was advice that did look at rent controls. One of the things that I do note is that even between our own agencies—for example, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and Treasury—there is a difference of opinion around degrees of impact as well.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is it fair that tenants have to prove rent is unreasonable through the Tenancy Tribunal, or should we just have better rules to set affordable rents in the first place?

On behalf of the Associate Minister, as I’ve told the member, we are continuing to monitor those rents closely. We have looked at the most appropriate datasets, whether that be the Tenancy Tribunal, rent/bond data, or whether that be the Stats New Zealand dataset that we look at, and we will continue to keep a watch on those numbers.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Would the Labour Government follow the example set by, for example, the Labour Party mayor of London and work to introduce fair rules to ensure reasonable rents?

On behalf of the Associate Minister, I went through, in the answer to the primary question, a range of measures that we have already taken as a Government to ensure that we do have the ability for those New Zealanders who rent their homes to have a warm, dry place that they can feel secure in, and part of that is ensuring that rents don’t spiral out of control. We have no plans for rent controls or indexation. We are continuing to monitor the situation.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Then, how much more unaffordable would rents have to get for the 1.4 million New Zealanders in rental properties before the Government takes action?

On behalf of the Associate Minister, as we said, one of the reasons we are monitoring so carefully what is happening to rents across the country, but also in particular geographic locations, is because there was a lot of speculation from a range of interest groups around how sky-high rents would go when we did things like introduce the banning of letting fees, when we did things like limiting the number of rent increases to once a year. But what we have seen is that that has not come to pass—1.6 increase for the year to March 2021, and I think that that is a dataset we will continue to monitor.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. to the Prime Minister: Does the Government intend to implement all of its policies?

Yes, especially the Government’s decision to put a greater emphasis on primary healthcare and ensure fairer access to healthcare for all New Zealanders through establishing Health New Zealand, a new Māori health authority, and a new public health agency. The forms will mean that for the first time we’ll have a truly national health system and the kind of treatment people get will not be determined by where they live.

💬 David Seymour: Does she stand by the statement in the New Zealand Government’s submission on the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, dated March 2021, that “Aotearoa New Zealand is committed to being among the first states to create a plan to implement the Declaration.”; if so, what parts of the He Puapua report will be included in this plan?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m going to respond to the second half of the member’s question. As we have repeatedly said over the last few days and indeed the last week, He Puapua was a document that was produced by a group of individuals, presented to the Government, but has not gone to a Cabinet, has not gone to a Cabinet committee, is not a Government programme, and nor has it been endorsed by the Government. I’d make a general statement, though, if I may, to the member: the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was signed by the then National Government in 2010. In 2014, four years later, a Cabinet minute records that the then Cabinet, which included the now Leader of the Opposition announced that they would finally set a declaration roadmap to actually implement the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. There was a short stocktake on that implementation and, sadly, nothing further happened. You cannot simply sign up to a document and not do anything about it. We have started a process. It is fair to say it has some way to go.

💬 David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister now answer the first part of my question: does she stand by the statement in the New Zealand Government’s submission on the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, dated March 2021, that “Aotearoa New Zealand is committed to being among the first states to create a plan to implement the Declaration.”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We’re working on implementing something that we signed up to over a decade ago. The fact that that would make New Zealand amongst the first isn’t because we have an aspiration to be the first; it’s just a sad state of play that currently there aren’t many declaration plans in place. There was a visit, if I recall, not so long ago, where we were implored as a signatory to the declaration to actually start some work on it. I would hope that the member would agree that we do have some obligation to follow through on the signing of it, as National did 10 years ago.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister agree with the submission on the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, dated March 2021, when it says, “Māori wards and Māori health authorities are examples of initiatives which are consistent with the declaration.”, and, if so, what other initiatives from the declaration does the Government have under way?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Actually, what I would say is that a Māori health authority is actually consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi and our role as a partner to the Treaty of Waitangi. It also, if I may, is actually in keeping with the principle that I’d hope all New Zealanders would hold, that if something isn’t working, fix it. Our health system is not working for Māori. They are dying younger than other New Zealanders, and so we are fixing it. Now, you can put whatever rationale for that action that you would like on the table. Mine is fairness and equity.

💬 David Seymour: Was she aware that the Minister for Māori Development met with the chair of the Declaration Working Group on 7 April, and, if so, what discussions has she had about this meeting?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I am aware of that, and I would expect, given we received a report from that group, that that’s only in keeping with, really, just courtesy to make sure that we update the group on our intended work programme going forward. The paper—

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Why’s it taken two years?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I will not take criticism over the time line, given it’s been 10 years since the National Party signed up to it. To the member’s question, I imagine one of the things discussed would be the next step for us, because, obviously—we’d be the first to admit—there were some delays since that report was received for anything happening, in part: (a), COVID, and (b), the election.

💬 David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister confident the Government’s been acting in an open and transparent manner in relation to the He Puapua report, and, if so, why did the Ombudsman have to become involved in an Official Information Act request to release it?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: To answer the latter half of the question, the reason that Te Puni Kōkiri made the argument about not releasing the report was because of a concern that it would be misconstrued as Government policy. I rest my case.

💬 David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister saying that her Government cannot release reports taxpayers pay for because the people who pay for it might not properly understand it?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely not.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: If she believes it is a courtesy to update the authors of the report, when did she think she might have the courtesy to update the New Zealand public that have paid for it?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: At the time that it had been considered by Cabinet. We have, of course, a process of proactive release once a report has been considered by Cabinet. This report was released before it was even considered by Cabinet, a convention multiple Governments across multiple parties have always maintained.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister agree with Professor Jack Vowles of Victoria University, who says, “If the government is serious about He Puapua, it will explain its own position more fully, and if it wishes to pursue that agenda, or significant parts of it, it should set up the framework for a further constitutional debate to which all New Zealanders can contribute.”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That was what He Puapua was intended to start, and, I have to say, the groundwork for us being able to have a decent conversation about these issues has not been well established by the debate I have seen from members of this House.

💬 David Seymour: Is it the Government’s position that New Zealand deserves a debate or that the release of its documents should be supressed because poor little taxpayers might misconstrue it?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is completely mischaracterising my statement—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course our reports that are considered by Cabinet are proactively released, it is part of how we behave as a Government. This report had not been considered by Cabinet. There was no ability, therefore, for us to put formally our positions on the report, thus the argument that was in the absence of that it could be misconstrued as Government policy. And, I have to say, the member has proven that assertion to be completely correct.

Question No. 3—Finance

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

Last week, ANZ’s business confidence survey was titled “Bouncing back”, and it reported that confidence had jumped six points in April, with firms’ own activity also lifting six points. ANZ said the “solid bounce … indicated that firms are feeling pretty upbeat,”. It also admitted that the robustness of the data was starting to challenge the bank’s own view that the economy would go largely sideways this year. As I said this morning in my pre-Budget speech, the New Zealand economy has proved to be resilient in terms of GDP and unemployment. We are well-positioned relative to the countries we normally compare ourselves to.

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

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Manufacturing Index rose strongly, up 9.4 points in March to 63.6, the highest monthly result since the survey began in 2002. The result showed a strong boost in new orders and production, with manufacturers seeing an increase in demand both locally and overseas. Separately, the Performance of Services Index also climbed back into expansion, up 2.7 points in March to 52.4. The improvement was led by an increase in activities in sales and new orders.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen on trade and what that shows in terms of economic confidence?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The overseas merchandise trade figures for March show that firms appear more confident in investing more on the back of an improving economic environment. Imports of machinery and plant rose 26 percent to $922 million in March, compared with the same month a year earlier. For the March quarter, imports of machinery and plant rose 11 percent to $2.4 billion. While the economy is continuing to perform ahead of expectations, the global situation remains uncertain, and we can expect volatility in domestic and international data for some time.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

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

Yes—in particular, our recent announcement supporting our recovery from COVID-19 that, pending final confirmation by New Zealand’s Director-General of Health and the Cook Islands Secretary of Health, two-way quarantine-free travel will commence between New Zealand and the Cook Islands on 17 May. In addition, recent data from the Tertiary Education Commission shows that our investment in free apprenticeships has led to the number of apprentices increasing by 17.6 percent, compared to 2019. It’s particularly pleasing that the number of Māori and Pacific apprentices grew almost 30 percent last year. There was also a 19.7 percent jump in workers aged 25 to 39 taking the opportunity for a career change, and more than 1,500 additional apprentices aged over 40.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does she agree with her health Minister’s proposal to Cabinet that the Māori Health Authority be given “clear approval rights including an ability to exercise a veto in sign-off” over national health plans?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Here the intent of what has been designed is the idea of us seeing joint health plans developed between Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority. So that is intended to cover off areas where delivery is intended for the general population, but we want to make sure that we’ve got input from the Māori Health Authority, and say, over whether or not that is going to adequately reach Māori communities. Of course, what we want is that not to be consultation, which is what we have now and what hasn’t worked, so we’re seeking joint agreement. We will need to put in place mechanisms if there isn’t agreement on how to resolve those disputes, but this cannot be a situation of mere consultation—which is what we’re designing.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: So which health services are currently not accessed by Māori?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Currently, you can see in our data and our stats that anything from screening programmes for, say, bowel screening and, unfortunately, cervical screening is inadequate for Māori, because we are not reaching as many. The number of Māori we are reaching with those screening programmes isn’t the same as what we are reaching for the rest of the population. Now, we have to ask ourselves the question: “What do we need to do differently?” Because, ultimately, it’s resulting in Māori dying younger.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: So when national and regional plans have to first be approved by the Māori Health Authority, how is that not a power of veto over all of the Government health policy and implementation?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because that is the difference between partnership and consultation—you have to have that equal say—and this isn’t something we should be afraid of. We have tried the process of having a consultation style of approach. It hasn’t worked. For Māori, they have worse outcomes for cancer in every cancer, bar melanoma. I’d like to hear the member’s proposal for how we are going to turn around those statistics.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: In making the decision to establish the Māori Health Authority, did the Government consider article 23 of the declaration signed up to by the last National Government—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. Who made that comment? The member will withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: Chris Hipkins—start again, please.

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Did the Government consider, in making the commitment to establish the Māori Health Authority, article 23 of the declaration signed up to by the last National Government: “indigenous peoples have the right to be actively involved in developing and determining health, housing and other economic and social programmes affecting them and, as far as possible, to administer such programmes through their own institutions.”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: You could ask any member of this Government what their rationale for the Māori Health—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order!

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: You can ask any member of this Government their rationale for why this change was important. For some, it will be the preventable hospitalisations we see amongst our children, but particularly our Māori and Pacific children. For others, it will be the heavy prevalence of co-morbidities; others, it will be the public health issues around, for instance, the prevalence of smoking amongst our younger rangatahi. Everyone will have a different reason, but what we all agree is the system right now doesn’t work. Surely, as a House, we can concur that we have to do things differently. That is what this Māori Health Authority is all about.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: So isn’t that, in fact, a power of veto because the Māori Health Authority needs to co-sign or approve all national health strategies, and what happens if it decides not to?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, this is partnership. We have to form agreement on how we are going to roll out health policies that we want to make a tangible difference to the health of Māori communities—now, if the member has another proposal on how to achieve that, I’d very, very much be interested in it, but a lot of thought and work has gone into these proposals and our view is: ultimately, it will make a difference to health and, therefore, it will make a difference to the way that we’re able to allocate our health resources and ultimately save people’s lives and save money.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: If this is actually based on need, as the Prime Minister now seems to be indicating, then why is she not contemplating, say, a Pasifika health authority with a power of veto like she’s giving the Māori Health Authority?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m not actually going to go down the track of implying here—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I apologise to the Prime Minister. I know it’s the first day back after the school holidays but I think members—especially on my left but earlier on my right—need to know that they’re back at work now, not just in a playground yelling.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The question that I would put to the member is on what basis did the National Government establish Whānau Ora? On what basis did the National Government seek to support kōhanga reo? An acknowledgment, actually, of not only the obligations that we have but that we should be offering services—be they health or education or social services—in partnership with Māori. I don’t think that’s a new concept. It certainly never used to be a new concept for National.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: So why is the Prime Minister so set on having this power of veto for a Māori Health Authority over every other provider and provision of health services in New Zealand?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I reject the premise of that question and I have already given an answer.

Question No. 5—COVID-19 Response

5. to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Kia orana, Mr Speaker. What recent announcements has the Government made on commencing quarantine-free travel to and from New Zealand?

Yesterday, our Prime Minister and Prime Minister Brown of the Cook Islands announced that quarantine-free travel between New Zealand and the Cook Islands will commence at 11.59 p.m. on Sunday, 16 May. Long-term residents and critical workers have, of course, been able to travel quarantine-free from the Cook Islands to New Zealand since 21 January, and we’ve been working closely with the Cook Islands to expand this to a wider range of people. Two-way quarantine-free travel is a very significant step for both countries in our COVID-19 recovery, and it’s a direct result of New Zealand’s and the Cook Islands’ success in responding to the pandemic.

💬 Tangi Utikere: What are the benefits of quarantine-free travel with the Cook Islands?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Quarantine-free travel will mean that families can reconnect, commercial arrangements can resume, and some Kiwis can take a much-welcomed winter break, whilst also supporting the Cook Islands’ tourism sector and their recovery. It’s important to remember that many other countries around the world still have bans in place on travel for any holiday purposes. So this is exciting and a much-anticipated development for both New Zealand and the Cook Islands, and, of course, it builds on our existing free-travel arrangement with Australia.

💬 Tangi Utikere: What work will be required in the lead-up to the commencement of quarantine-free travel with the Cook Islands?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A lot of work has already been done, but there are still a few i’s to dot and t’s to cross. Commencement of the bubble will be subject to the normal final checks as we went through with Australia, including making sure that airlines and airports are ready and all of the necessary protocols and frameworks are in place, particularly around how we respond. And we’ll receive final advice from the Director-General of Health here in New Zealand before we go live on the 17th.

💬 Tangi Utikere: What plans will be in place in the event of an outbreak in the Cook Islands?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It is important to note that the response to any COVID-19 incursion between New Zealand and the Cook Islands will be different to that between New Zealand and Australia. The health and safety of people in the Cook Islands has, at all times, been a paramount consideration in New Zealand. If there were an outbreak, we would likely send some of our own health workforce to the Cook Islands to help them manage the effects of that, and we would look to try and reduce any impact—and that may mean bringing people back to New Zealand quite quickly. As in the case with Australia, the bubble does come with a flyer-beware caveat. If there is an outbreak in New Zealand, flights could be paused, and given the size of the social settings in the Cooks, a highly precautionary approach is likely to be taken.

Question No. 6—Health

6. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions related to the proposed Māori Health Authority?

Yes. I especially stand by my statement that “The system has never allowed Māori meaningful control over issues affecting their own communities and has never really acknowledged that what we are doing isn’t working for Māori, and that by giving more control over to Māori communities, we might actually change things for the better.”

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Has he had any communications around aligning the proposed Māori Health Authority with the strategy described in He Puapua; if so, what?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have no knowledge of the content of the report known as He Puapua; I have not seen it. The proposals that the Government announced a couple of weeks ago are based on the information and advice that we have received, including the report of the Health and Disability System Review, and they are about doing what is right for New Zealand today.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Can he name one Māori health outcome that a Māori health authority will commit to improve in the first year of operation?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: There are a number that I would expect to improve. So, for example, the feature of our health system that the Health Quality and Safety Commission reported on just a week before we made our announcement two weeks ago was that if you are a young Māori—if you are rangatahi—and you suffer a major trauma, you are three times more likely to die within a month of that trauma than other New Zealanders. And one of the reasons for that is you are less likely, if you are rangatahi, having suffered a major trauma, to get a CT scan. How does that work? I would also expect the Māori Health Authority to address the figure of Māori and Pacific people being twice as likely to die young from conditions that could have been treated had they got treatment at the right time. I would also expect, in the long term, a Māori health authority, through its mahi, to address the fact that life expectancy for Māori is, on average, seven years shorter than for the rest of New Zealand.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Is it envisaged that in GP consultations, some components of the consultation will be accountable to the Māori Health Authority and some components will be accountable to Health New Zealand (Health NZ)?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: It’s very sad that the National Party is forced to put up absurd propositions on what is a very serious issue for Māori, but actually for all of New Zealand, and that is the inequity in our health system: inequity of access and inequity of health outcomes. That member well knows, because of the region from which he comes, that there are kaupapa Māori health services that provide health services to Māori and to Pākehā. They don’t distinguish it, and they provide excellent Māori health services as a result.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Point of order, Mr Speaker—not clear to me that the Minister has addressed the question that I asked about GP consultations.

💬 SPEAKER: I think he’s got there in the end.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Why has he not proposed a separate Pacific peoples health authority, despite his Cabinet paper stating that health disparities are centred to the reforms, and that Pacific people have the same health disparities as Māori?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member is correct that the same health disparities that Māori suffer apply equally to Pacific people, and that is why part of the proposal is to have a beefed-up Pacific directorate in the revamped Ministry of Health, and specific attention from Health NZ. The difference is, however, that the Crown has obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi, and one of those obligations is to act in partnership, and we are going to act in partnership.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Then, is the establishment of a Māori health authority with veto powers primarily to address health outcomes for Māori or to comply with the Treaty?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: It is to do two things: it is to address the obvious and longstanding inequity of access to healthcare and health outcomes for Māori, and it is also to comply with our Treaty obligations. I don’t know why that member and his compadres in the National Party are so concerned that by acting in partnership, somehow Māori have a different set of interests to the rest of New Zealand on this. We all have the same interest in the best possible health outcomes for all New Zealanders, and we are setting up a system to deliver just that.

Question No. 7—Social Development and Employment

7. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Fa‘afetai tele, Mr Speaker. What recent announcements has the Minister for social development made about supporting beneficiaries and superannuitants through their winter months?

Last week, I announced that 1 May would mark the beginning of the Government’s winter energy payment. This means that over 1 million New Zealanders receiving either a main benefit or New Zealand superannuation will get more money each week through the winter energy payment. This year, the winter energy payment runs from 1 May until 1 October, delivering $20.46 per week for single people or $31.82 per week for couples and single people with children.

💬 Terisa Ngobi: Why is the winter energy payment important?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Because winter is coming. We all know that having a warm home is a key part of preventing illness and supporting people’s wellbeing through the winter season. Many New Zealanders struggle with the increased power costs, particularly those on low incomes, and, over the winter months, children and superannuitants are most at risk of being hospitalised due to respiratory illnesses. This payment supports them in covering the cost of energy bills and removes the barrier of costs to heating their homes.

💬 Terisa Ngobi: How can beneficiaries and superannuitants access the winter energy payment?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Anyone getting a main benefit, New Zealand superannuation, or a veterans pension is eligible to receive the winter energy payment. They don’t need to do anything or apply. If they’re eligible, they will get the winter energy payment automatically.

Question No. 8—Transport

8. to the Minister of Transport: Does the Government remain committed to all of the projects that comprise the transport portion of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme announced in January 2020; if not, why not?

Yes, the Government has not made changes to the New Zealand Upgrade Programme and remains committed to delivery of good transport outcomes along all of the routes concerned. Given the scale of the projects concerned and the fact that the programme was announced pre-COVID, a baselining exercise has been done to provide certainty around cost and scope. Ministers are working through the options on how to take the programme forward, and announcements on all the rest of the projects will be made in the near future.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why, then, did he last week refuse to commit, to media, to delivering all the projects his Government announced in 2020?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: That’s not the case. The Government remains committed to those projects. I have simply, in the media, made the comment that the Government remains committed to a sound process to consider the scope and costings of the projects, something that we believe is important, and I’m surprised that the member doesn’t think that’s important, given the shambles of the Transmission Gully project that that lot left for this Government to clean up and bail out—because they didn’t do the groundwork. That’s what we’re doing now.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will he publicly disclose the new baseline information he has recently received, and, if so, when?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Yes, in due course.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will the Mill Road connection from Manukau to Drury South proceed?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As I said in my primary answer, the Government remains committed to good transport outcomes and investment across all of the routes concerned in the New Zealand Upgrade Programme. That work is proceeding, and we’ll have further announcements to make in the near future. I note that in the area that the member is talking about, we’re making very good progress with a number of New Zealand Upgrade projects, including State Highway 1 from Papakura to Drury in the Papakura electorate, which I dug the sod on last week.

💬 Chris Bishop: Is the Government committed to the time line and the quantum of funding for the Melling Interchange project, as announced in January 2020?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As I said in my primary answer, the Government remains committed to the projects within the New Zealand Upgrade Programme. The member needs to spend a bit less time focusing on speculation on Twitter about these projects, and what the member could do is to engage in some constructive engagement like the elected member for Hutt South has done, who has brought forward to me the importance of that project, and I’ve assured her the project remains an important part of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme and we intend to move forward with its implementation as soon as possible.

Question No. 9—Police

9. to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement, “Gang numbers and gang crime will only reduce when police and communities work together to disrupt gang operations and to disrupt their flow of recruits … I welcome the support of all members of this House on this”?

on behalf of the Minister of Police: Yes.

💬 Nicole McKee: Did the support she was envisaging include members of Parliament attending events hosted by gangs at gang pads, and, if so, how does this help disrupt gang operations?

If the member is discussing in her question a recent visit by members of Parliament, I, as the Minister of Police, have no responsibility for those other members of Parliament.

💬 Nicole McKee: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: Will the member repeat her question.

💬 Nicole McKee: Did the support she was envisaging include members of Parliament attending events hosted by gangs at gang pads, and, if so, how does this help disrupt gang operations?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the Minister did answer that question.

💬 Nicole McKee: Does she believe that it is helpful for members of Parliament to attend events held at gang pads?

On behalf of the Minister of Police, I’m not responsible for those members of Parliament who may or may not have visited gang pads.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order. Surely, the question, which was on notice, related to the Minister’s statement, which did ask members of Parliament to behave in a certain way. Now, to simply say now that she’s not responsible for that behaviour is a dodge. I think questions about the Minister’s view that were on notice should be answered.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m not going to suggest a way around it, which is relatively simple if people thought about it. But in this particular case, the way that the question was asked, where members are acting individually as opposed to in the House, I think the Minister doesn’t have responsibility for their activities as members of Parliament.

💬 Nicole McKee: What place is there for gangs, such as the Mongrel Mob, in New Zealand?

On behalf of the Minister of Police, no place, which is why as a Government we have invested $450 million to make sure that our police are resourced to make sure that we do disrupt gang activity.

Question No. 10—Māori Development

10. to the Minister for Māori Development: What recent reports has he seen on the state of the Māori economy?

Last week, I spoke at the release of the report Te Ōhanga Māori, with the headline finding from the report being that Māori are making up a much larger part of our economy and, given the young Māori population, and as we rebuild and recover from the impacts of COVID-19, Māori have a significant part to play in the future wellbeing of the New Zealand economy.

💬 Paul Eagle: What are some of the key insights from Te Ōhanga Māori?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Aside from the key headline figure that the Māori asset base is near $70 billion, one of the real strengths is our people themselves. The Māori labour-force is growing five times faster than the non-Māori labour-force, which is reflected in the growth of Māori who are self-employed or who are Māori employers. If these rates continue, there will be 4,500 new Māori employers next year and 4,600 more Māori who are self-employed.

💬 Paul Eagle: What other Government initiatives does Te Ōhanga Māori indicate will help grow the Māori economy further?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The report identifies that social procurement will support Māori business growth as we recover from the impacts of COVID-19. Māori business and jobs are a priority for this Government, which is why we have set a 5 percent target for Public Service contracts for Māori businesses as an important step not only towards a more inclusive society but to support the growth of Māori business overall.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Will he rule out this Government implementing the He Puapua recommendation to provide increased Māori ownership of the foreshore and seabed?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! That just doesn’t get close to the question within the responsibility of this Minister or anything which flows from it. This is a question on the state of the Māori economy.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the member’s relatively new; so I’ll be a little more liberal with him. Generally, when a ruling’s been made, one doesn’t challenge it, because it sort of results in getting tossed out.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Thank you for your patience. The He Puapua report, though, was commissioned by his department and it does refer extensively to the Māori economy and to the natural capitals and the resources of New Zealand. Sixty-five percent of our economy is built on the natural capitals of New Zealand. It seems a relevant question around the Māori economy.

💬 SPEAKER: That’s right, and it might well have been if the member had phrased his question well. He might have got there, and it might have been acceptable; he didn’t.

💬 Paul Eagle: Why are reports like Te Ōhanga Māori important?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: There’s still much to do to continue to build Māori participation in the economy. Reports like Te Ōhanga Māori are critical as we need the good information they provide that enables Government to develop strong policies that focus on whānau thriving and continue to support ways for Māori to be resilient, to be strong, to have prosperity, and, of course, wellbeing.

Question No. 11—Police

11. to the Minister of Police: What are the measures of success, if any, for Operation Tauwhiro, and is she confident Operation Tauwhiro has been successful in reducing gang violence?

on behalf of the Minister of Police: The main measures of success include to sustainably reduce the prevalence of violence by gangs and organised crime, particularly that involving the use of firearms, and to remove access to illicit firearms in gangs and organised crime groups, and hold offenders to account. I previously updated the House on the progress police are making under Operation Tauwhiro. In the 10 weeks that it has been operational, they have seized 281 firearms, seized $2.2 million in cash, arrested 319 people, seized just a little under 8 kilograms of meth, and conducted 254 search warrants.

💬 Simeon Brown: Is it a measure of success of Operation Tauwhiro for Ministers of the Crown to be attending and speaking at gang pads?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member knows that that’s not a serious question.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That is a serious question. The supplementary question that my colleague asked was in relation to a measure of success for Operation Tauwhiro, and he is asking whether or not engagement by members of Parliament with gangs is a measure of success for the operation. I think it’s a very serious question, particularly in light of what’s happened in recent days.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think there are a couple of ways of dealing with that which make it clear, absolutely clear, that the question was ironic—clearly ironic. [Interruption] Order! I’m actually trying to take a relatively liberal approach today; multiple interjections while I’m on my feet doesn’t help. The other obvious point is that Ministers are not responsible for other Ministers.

💬 Simeon Brown: Is she aware of any other Ministers who have met with gangs at gang pads and does she believe this undermines the measures of success of Operation Tauwhiro?

I am not.

💬 Simeon Brown: Does she have concerns with Ministers meeting with gangs at gang pads while a major police operation—Operation Tauwhiro—targeting gangs is currently under way?

If the member is referring to a visit by MPs in their own party’s capacity, I have no responsibility. [Interruption] You good?

💬 SPEAKER: I’m fine. Both sides settle down.

💬 Simeon Brown: Does she have concerns with Ministers or members of Parliament meeting with gangs at gang pads while a major police operation—Operation Tauwhiro—targeting gangs is currently under way?

If the member is referring to the visit recently by MPs who were attending meetings in their capacity as MPs of their own party, I have no responsibility for that.

Question No. 12—Education

12. to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements has the Government made on expanding the in-school mental health and wellbeing programme?

Recently, the Government announced that the Mana Ake mental health and wellbeing programme will be rolled out in schools across five new DHB areas in Northland, Counties Manukau, Bay of Plenty, Lakes, and West Coast. This is an established and proven in-school programme that has supported more than 7,000 children across Canterbury and Kaikōura since it began in 2018.

💬 Angela Roberts: What benefits does the Mana Ake programme offer schools and young people?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: Mana Ake provides early intervention for mild to moderate mental health and wellbeing needs for children in primary school years 1 to 8. It’s designed to work with young people and families who are experiencing anxiety, grief, bullying, or other mental health challenges before their situation worsens. The Mana Ake programme involves professionals with a range of skills, such as psychologists and counsellors. It’s a collaborative, whole-school approach involving teachers, whānau, and young people to build mental health, understanding, and resilience. We know from the success of the programme in the Canterbury region that equipping our young people as early as we can will improve their overall learning outcomes.

💬 Angela Roberts: What other in-school mental health and wellbeing services have been made available under this Government?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: In addition to the thousands of young people supported through Mana Ake, the Government has funded more guidance counsellors in secondary schools; begun work on refreshing the New Zealand curriculum to include tools to develop children’s social and emotional learning; funded 40 new curriculum leads to help guide schools to deliver a high-quality local curriculum supportive of the wellbeing of learners and teachers; funded $3.2 million to expand mental wellbeing services for young Rainbow New Zealanders; and provided free, healthy lunches and period products in schools. All of these initiatives will go a long way in supporting schools and young people to improve mental health and wellbeing. Nothing is a silver bullet, but we know that when we create inclusive and supportive environments that are adjusted to suit communities in different areas, we get better educational and health outcomes for New Zealanders.

💬 Matt Doocey: How can New Zealanders have confidence in the Government’s mental health announcements, when, in July last year, they announced $25 million for mental health and education settings and, 10 months later, not one dollar’s been spent, not one new service—

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Matt Doocey: —and not one student’s been seen?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Any of those five questions.

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: I’m not sure exactly what that member is referring to. Maybe the member is referring to the funding of the $8.94 million over three years for initiatives to support the wellbeing of the education workforce in response to COVID-19. The point of the funding was to ensure that we had the initiatives available to teachers should they need it. I’m aware there have been some delays in allocating the funding, which are for a variety of reasons, but predominantly and ultimately the uptake was voluntary and demand was less than expected. Again, I say that the point of the funding was to ensure that we had the initiatives available to the teachers should they need it.

💬 Matt Doocey: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wasn’t actually asking about the $8.9 million programme that they’ve failed to roll out. It was the—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat.