Oral Questions

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek clarification on the transfer of questions from the Prime Minister to her Ministers. I also seek leave of the House to transfer my question back to the Prime Minister, with the original wording as lodged, to ask for her views on this important take [issue].

I thank the member for raising it. I thank him for giving notice to me of the fact that he was going to raise it. There are, I think, two relevant Speakers’ rulings. The first I’ll refer him to is Speakers’ ruling 161/1, which makes it clear that with very limited exceptions it is in the power of the Government to transfer questions to the Minister they think is appropriate.

The second Speaker’s ruling I will refer the member to is 160/1, and that is that Speakers have previously ruled that they won’t put leave to transfer questions back, because the decision has already been made by the Government.

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Yes. In particular, I stand by the further drop in the unemployment rate down to 4.7 percent. The figures released today show not only a drop in our overall unemployment rate and an increase in employment but an increase in women’s employment, with an additional 14,000 more women in work compared to last quarter—not just a number. This builds on our March benefit quarterly statistics, which showed a record number of people have come off benefit, with nearly 33,000 entering paid work. These numbers are evidence that our economic plan is working and that the Government’s employment investments are making a real difference in the lives of New Zealanders, including the expansion of the Flexi-wage to support more people into work, which has already had 1,600 placements in its first six weeks; our Apprenticeship Boost scheme to help employers retain apprentices, which has already benefited over 22,000 apprentices; and our free trades training, which has benefited 106,000. I could well go on.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Was her health Minister correct when he said yesterday that there are two vetoes in the proposed health restructuring; if so, what are those two vetoes?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I don’t believe that I would agree with the characterisation of—

💬 Chris Bishop: He said it.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I do not agree with the characterisation the member has continuously put to this House. As we have said in answers yesterday, of course the intention is that a Government would set health priorities; that Health New Zealand, alongside the Māori Health Authority, would then establish national health plans to ensure the delivery of those priorities. Without having that equal footing in approving the way those health plans would work, you essentially just maintain the status quo, which is the idea of consultation, and we are trying to move beyond that.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: So is there a veto power or not?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said, yes, there is a requirement that we reach agreement between Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority on the delivery of those health priorities. Again, just in the same way that Kōhanga Reo determines how they deliver their services and Whānau Ora determines how they deliver theirs. This is a response to the fact that our system as it stands has not worked well. It does not remove the ability of the Government of the day to set health priorities, but this will, we hope, enhance the way that we deliver those services on behalf of all New Zealanders, including our Treaty partner.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: So what mechanism is she putting in place, or has she put in place, to deal with a situation where the Māori Health Authority wishes to veto a decision of the national health agency—or whatever name it’s called—when there is no agreement? What’s she going to do about the veto power?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I would point out that this is in relation to decisions that will affect Māori health provision, so I think this idea that somehow it’s completely detached or devoid from the delivery of actual services—there will be issues where, of course, we have said that the Māori Health Authority will be involved in direct commissioning, so you’ll have those priorities set nationally. There might be specific services that they will commission. However, there will be other areas where you are providing a service across the board—say, it might be national cancer screening—where we will be doing general population, and we do need to ensure that the Māori Health Authority is having a view and a say in the delivery of those services for Māori, because we haven’t done that to date and we haven’t reached Māori as a result to date. So some of the things we’re working through is if we do reach an impasse—which I, frankly, don’t believe we often will—we have mechanisms to resolve those issues. That’s part of the work that our transition agencies continue to do.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: So if she’s so concerned about using the term “veto”, then why is it in the health Cabinet paper that her Minister took to Cabinet, and why did he say yesterday there are two vetoes?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My question is why can the member not say the word “partnership”?

💬 Hon Judith Collins: What commitments has she made to iwi and the Labour Māori caucus on fresh water and resource management changes?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Simply that we’ll try and work together to resolve an issue that has sat on the table and languished and that her previous Government was unable to resolve, and that we have undertaken that we’ll keep up the dialogue to see if we can work through it.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: So when will she start the dialogue with every other New Zealander on these very important issues?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I would push back on this idea that we haven’t had good, robust debate around water use in New Zealand over a number of years. I remember it being a particular subject of interest in an election not so long ago, called 2017. Not all of our ideas were at that time successful, but that debate has long been held in New Zealand. It is not new, and everyone has a voice in it.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: So when is she going to tell the New Zealand public exactly what commitment she has advised Cabinet about when she made that commitment to the Labour Māori caucus and the collective referred to in her Government’s Cabinet paper?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Sorry, I’m not entirely clear on the member’s question. Could you please re-ask?

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Yes. So when is she going to tell the New Zealand public exactly what is the commitment that she made to the Labour Māori caucus and the collective referred to in her Government’s Cabinet paper on the meeting around fresh water and resource management control?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Exactly what I said in my first answer: that this issue has been before us for a number of years. No one has been able to resolve it. In fact, some haven’t attempted to. Our commitment is to work together. I say publicly what I say privately.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Point of order. I’m wondering why two Pākehā women are talking about Māori issues when they’re not talking to Māori themselves. There’s a room full of us.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the one thing that I’m not going to take responsibility for is the member’s wondering.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Will she rule out transferring full or partial governance of the foreshore and seabed to Māori while she is Prime Minister?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We commit to upholding the legislation that’s already in place.

💬 SPEAKER: Question No. 2, Barbara Edmonds.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

💬 Hon Aupito William Sio: Bring back Simon Bridges.

💬 BARBARA EDMONDS: To the Minister of Finance—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Barbara Edmonds.

💬 BARBARA EDMONDS: To the Minister of Finance: what recent reports has he seen—

💬 SPEAKER: No, sorry, I am going to interrupt. I am going to require the Hon Aupito William Sio to withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Aupito William Sio: I withdraw and apologise.

Question No. 2—Finance

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

Today, Statistics New Zealand released the job figures for the March 2021 quarter. The data showed the unemployment rate dropped, again, to 4.7 percent, from 4.9 percent in December, with 5,000 fewer people classed as unemployed over the quarter. The unemployment rate is now the same as it was in September 2017. Stats New Zealand said the economy continued to add jobs at the start of the year, with people in employment up 15,000 over the March quarter from December. This meant people in employment is up by 32,000 since the September 2020 quarter and it highlights the strength of the economy under the Government’s recovery and jobs plan.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What reactions has he seen to the positive jobs data?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The consensus among economists had been that the unemployment rate would stay at 4.9 percent. The result is also well below Treasury’s forecast at the half-year update in December, which had unemployment to be 6.5 percent in the March 2021 quarter. In their review of the data, ANZ’s economists said New Zealand’s labour market was “undeniably stronger”, and that the employment numbers demonstrated “the remarkable resilience of the New Zealand economy and the success of the Government’s COVID response at keeping workers connected with jobs”. The success of that response can be seen in the data for the Auckland region, which during this quarter was affected by alert level 3 restrictions. Employment in the Auckland region hit a record high during the March quarter. This shows that the Government’s focus on protecting jobs and businesses with the wage subsidy and resurgence support payment continues to be the right approach.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What other recent reports has he seen on the stability of the New Zealand economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Today, the Reserve Bank released its May Financial Stability Report. The Reserve Bank says its assessment shows “New Zealand has coped with the COVID-19 pandemic better than initially feared,”. The report said that “The spread of COVID-19 in New Zealand has been supressed by border restrictions, periodic Alert Level changes, and an effective public health response.” The bank added that “Business activity has been able to recover, and confidence in the economic outlook has increased.” The report also warned that some vulnerabilities and risks do remain, and—I’ll quote—“New Zealand’s economic prospects ultimately depend on the global containment of the pandemic and on the recovery of trading-partner economies.” That’s why it’s important for the Government to continue supporting the economy with our investments: to secure the recovery while tackling long-term issues like housing affordability, which have built up over decades.

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 announcement to reform the healthcare system to make it more accessible for all New Zealanders. The changes have been informed by the Health and Disability System Review, which found our health system was under stress and that greater emphasis on primary healthcare had the greatest potential to improve New Zealanders’ health. As the Minister of Health said at the announcement, the reforms will mean that for the first time we will have a truly national health system; the kind of treatment people get will no longer be determined by where they live. The reforms will help implement the Government healthcare strategies and visions that include all DHBs being replaced by one national organisation—Health New Zealand—a new Māori health authority, which will have the power to commission health services, monitor the state of Māori health, and develop policy; and the creation of a new public health agency; and, of course, strengthening the Ministry of Health’s role to monitor performance and advise Government. In my view, this will improve the health of all New Zealanders.

💬 David Seymour: Does she stand by her Government’s policy of giving preference to Māori businesses through procurement; if so, will her Government also give preference to other demographics under-represented in business ownership—for example, women?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Actually, just on that, the member has raised the issue of businesses—particularly, I would say, the example of women, but indigenous business owners and operators—and what we can do to increase participation, access, and growth of those businesses. It’s actually been a part of our export strategy, as a Government, and been part of some of the trade negotiations we’ve had with other countries. We’re not alone in the work we’re doing. In fact, around procurement policy, we modelled what we’ve done on procurement on Australia, and, likewise, have looked to the experiences of the Canadians, where they’re using both trade instruments and procurement to try and see a boost in the growth of indigenous and women and small business generally in their representation in procurement and trade.

💬 David Seymour: If a Māori-owned business, a Pacific-owned business, and a Chinese-owned business all submit equivalent bids for a Government contract, how will her Government decide who to award it to?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, we have a range of procurement guidelines, processes, and policies, which I have an expectation that all departments will make sure that they are applying in the work that they do. Rather than go on to hypotheticals, probably the best thing I can point the member to is a process that’s being adopted by Auckland Council. As part of the Southern Initiative, they undertook some very similar work, and, again, we looked at the way they had operated a similar policy. It has led to really positive outcomes. They’ve seen a spread of a diversity in a number of businesses they’re engaging with. It’s particularly supported small to medium sized enterprises, and it’s seen the growth of employment opportunities within the region. Again, we’re not doing this from a starting base of nothing. Others are leading on this. We have learnt from it. In our view, it means that we’ll be able to support greater representation of both small business, Māori business, and others, in procurement policy where they’ve previously been excluded for a number of reasons.

💬 David Seymour: Will the Government compromise on quality or cost when it procures goods and services from Māori business, and if it would, what on earth does that say about this Government’s attitude to Māori? [Interruption]

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I reject the assertion that’s made in that question.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! We’ve had an unusual situation now where we had interjection during an ACT question from a number of members, and as a result of that, I will give ACT three additional questions, which they can use this week.

💬 David Seymour: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is it not paternalistic to provide a separate process for Māori-owned businesses than any other business?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

💬 David Seymour: Why isn’t the Government’s goal simply to procure quality goods and services at reasonable prices when it buys on behalf of taxpayers regardless of who is selling them?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That, of course, is one of the goals of procurement policy as well.

Question No. 4—Housing

4. to the Minister of Housing: What progress, if any, has been made on accelerating the build of public housing?

We are on track to deliver on our promise of over 18,000 new housing—public and transitional—places by the end of 2024. We now have a fully funded public house building programme right through to 2024. To date, since we took office, we have delivered 7,631 net new places, of which 5,848 are brand-new builds. I am focused on rebuilding the institutional muscle memory of the State to provide public housing at a scale we have not seen in decades, as Kāinga Ora is now well positioned to continue this momentum.

💬 Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: Are there instances where public houses are bought in from the private market?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The practice of buying in more houses than we are building that had been developed over the previous decade needed to stop, and we have done that. Since we took office, we’ve seen the proportion of houses bought in from the private market drastically reduce. For example, in 2012, 63 percent of all new State houses were buy-ins. This compares to an average around 23 percent under this Government. In limited circumstances we continue to buy in houses where there is a clear requirement, such as to address urgent demand in locations where stock is limited or where a property is strategically located and beneficial to acquire. We expect the proportion of buy-ins to continue to decline as our public house build programme ramps up.

💬 Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: Are there instances under this Government where Kāinga Ora sells houses?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Our Government came in with a policy to stop the mass sell-off of State houses, and that is exactly what we did. However, as we’ve stated numerous times, there will always be instances where there is a need for Kāinga Ora to sell houses. These reasons include where it may be the wrong house in the wrong place—where it does not match demand in that area and it is surplus to requirements. To give perspective, the number of State houses sold between November 2017 and January 2021 was 190, compared with 1,300 sold between 2014 and 2017.

💬 Nicola Willis: Can she confirm there are currently 22,803 New Zealanders on the social housing register, and will she seek assistance from the deliverology unit to help address this?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes, I can confirm there are 22,000 people on the State housing register. This is largely the result of a decade of inaction from that member’s party when they were in Government—not only their failure to build houses but the fact that they ended up with 1,500 fewer public houses than they started Government with.

Question No. 5—Deputy Prime Minister

5. to the Deputy Prime Minister: Which critical initiatives will the implementation unit that he will lead be tasked with monitoring, and why is it only being established more than 42 months after this Government was formed?

I do note for the member that this Government was sworn in on 6 November 2020, some six months ago. The focus of the unit will be on programmes and projects funded out of the COVID Response and Recovery Fund, infrastructure, and other key Government priorities. The final list of programmes will be finalised after discussion with the head of the unit, who will shortly be appointed. To the second part of the question, we have set up the implementation unit because of our large investment in the COVID recovery, the number of multi-agency programmes in our response, and because it is international best practice to do so.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Will the implementation unit have the authority to tell the CEO of a Government entity what to do?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The implementation unit changes nothing about the Public Finance Act or the Public Service Act.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Where will ultimate responsibility for the delivery of key Government projects lie: with the responsible portfolio Minister or with the Minister responsible for the implementation unit?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my last answer, nothing changes in terms of the Public Service Act, the Public Finance Act, or, indeed, the Cabinet Manual. Ministers remain responsible for their portfolios; chief executives remain responsible for their agency.

💬 David Seymour: Who will have responsibility for implementing the list of projects on which the implementation project will work?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m sure that the member will be delighted to learn that the implementation unit’s programme of work will be subject to the Official Information Act (OIA) and will be released. I find it interesting that the members opposite have such an aversion to the implementation of Government programmes, but we learnt that by what they did in the nine years they were in office, when they failed to implement across a range of portfolios.

💬 David Seymour: Can the Minister reassure this House and New Zealanders that if we were to make such Official Information Act requests, we would not discover that this implementation unit had had a baby and spawned an implementation unit within an implementation unit?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member will be able to OIA to his heart’s content. He also might like to look around the world and see one of the Leader of the Opposition’s favourite politicians, Boris Johnson, working very closely on a very, very similar idea right now—international best practice.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Why does the Government need an implementation unit when 10,000 more bureaucrats have been employed since it came to office in 2017?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my primary answer, the $50 billion that was put in through the COVID Response and Recovery Fund is the largest investment that we have seen in the provision of services to the New Zealand public. It includes a wide range of programmes where we have multiple agencies, outside bodies involved. All of those things represent a significant shift in the way the Government is working, and this unit will support the delivery of those programmes.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Would an implementation unit have led to the Government actually delivering on its promises like KiwiBuild or the light rail project?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m very proud of the record, which today in the House was talked about, where unemployment finds its way to 4.7 percent, where we’ve delivered a wage subsidy scheme, where we’ve supported small businesses. I am extremely proud of the delivery of this Government.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order. The question was clearly about light rail and KiwiBuild; they weren’t addressed at all by the Minister.

💬 SPEAKER: That’s a very fair point of order. I’ll invite the Deputy Prime Minister to have another go.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I am extremely proud of the Government’s delivery and the record that we have. I have already said what the projects will be that we’ll focus on. We are looking forwards.

Question No. 6—Public Service

6. to the Minister for the Public Service: What pay and employment relations expectations has the Government set out for the public sector?

Last year, the Public Service Commissioner issued guidance to Public Service agencies asking them to have nil or minimal pay increases for public servants until June of this year. Today, the Public Service Commissioner is updating that guidance to make it clear that pay restraint will need to continue to be exercised across the Public Service for the next three years. The updated guidance will continue to mean that there should be no pay increases for those earning over $100,000 and senior leaders within the Public Service. Any increases should be targeted to those lower-paid public servants, largely those earning below $60,000 a year, who account for about 25 percent of the public sector. We want those on the lower wages to be the focus of any increases in pay.

💬 Ginny Andersen: How would the Minister respond to concerns about this pay restraint raised by the Public Service Association?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: This is ultimately about prioritising Government spending. I would say to the Public Service Association that we’ll continue to work closely with them on issues around gender and ethnic pay gaps, on issues of pay parity, and on issues around terms and conditions, as we have been doing over the last three years, where we’re making progress and we know more progress is required. I’d also say to them that the guidance is consistent with the decision last year by the Remuneration Authority that Ministers and MPs would not be getting any pay rises for the next three years because of COVID-19 and the decision by the Public Service Commissioner, who sets the pay of Public Service chief executives, who will also not be increasing any of their pay.

💬 Ginny Andersen: What other expectations has the Government set out for the Public Service workforce?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We want the Public Service to use modern, progressive employment practices, to be a good place to work. We also want a productive unified workforce which is grounded in the spirit of service. To achieve these goals, we’ve set four key workforce priorities for the Public Service: employ people fairly, equitably, and in a way that allows them to live good lives and participate in the economy; work collaboratively with unions and other groups to achieve those shared goals; create an inclusive environment for all workers with the aim of achieving a diverse workforce; and achieve all of those goals within the fiscal context of the Government.

Question No. 7—Māori Development

7. to the Minister for Māori Development: What influence, if any, did the He Puapua report have on the contents of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Next Steps for a Declaration Plan – lodging Cabinet paper and draft talking points briefing paper that he received last month?

The next steps to develop a national declaration plan need to be considered by Cabinet. I’m in the process of submitting my proposals for the next steps. To that end, I received the draft Cabinet paper on 7 April 2021 outlining proposed next steps. Part of the draft Cabinet paper includes a summary of He Puapua. He Puapua is one of several elements that fed into the draft Cabinet paper, alongside the guidance provided by the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on the development of a declaration plan and Cabinet-agreed guidelines on Māori Crown engagement.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Which specific Ministers has he consulted with regarding the draft Cabinet paper on the implementation plan for a declaration on the rights of indigenous people?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That’s a process that I’m engaging in now. I haven’t consulted with any Ministers at this stage—it’s a paper that will be going around all Cabinet Ministers—other than speaking with the Prime Minister.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: What specific issues did he discuss in relation to the Cabinet paper on indigenous people in his recent meetings with the declaration working group and Independent Monitoring Mechanism group for He Puapua and the declaration?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The independent group who put together He Puapua gave me an overview of their work. They put out some of their aspirations, they asked questions about when recommendations would be going to Cabinet, and we had a very good kōrero.

💬 Shanan Halbert: What should be guiding the development of a declaration plan?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples visited Aotearoa in April 2019 and provided some helpful guidelines and emphasised the point that any declaration plan should be developed in partnership with Māori. This aligns with Cabinet-agreed guidelines on Māori Crown engagement.

💬 Shanan Halbert: What is the approach outlined in He Puapua for developing a declaration plan?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Let me be clear that He Puapua is not the draft national declaration plan that the National Party signed up to. The report recommended a two-step engagement process, robust monitoring over any plan that was to be developed, and ministerial oversight and arrangements for partnership with Māori on the development of the plan. Decisions on the next steps for the development of a national declaration plan, including on targeted and public engagement, are currently under consideration.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Do any of the mentioned documents or his meetings discuss the possibility of creating separate Māori processes and veto powers over public policy, like the recently announced Māori Health Authority—for instance, over the Resource Management Act or water allocation?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: There are a number of different views that were put at the meeting that I had with the independent group. That was an important meeting where different views were exchanged, and if you find the document, you will see some of the aspirations of that group. I emphasise, though, that that is an independent group; that is not Government policy, and they have started a conversation that the National Party started in 2010.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Why does he believe implementing recommendations made in the He Puapua report like powers of veto over public policy will lead to fair and equitable outcomes for all New Zealanders?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: As I said, He Puapua is a starting document. It’s starting the conversation. We want all New Zealanders to participate in that conversation. There are three areas: He Puapua, the plan, and the declaration. The National Party have forgotten that they have signed up to this declaration. In 2014, they talked about a plan, then they forgot the plan. The National Party have also forgotten that they agree with probably 85 percent of our views in terms of te ao Māori, as Judith Collins has said many times. They support Whānau Ora, they support the Treaty settlements process, they support kōhanga reo, and it’s really disgraceful how they’ve been handling this subject.

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Can the Minister confirm that much of the content informing He Puapua is taken from the Treaty settlement process, the Waitangi Tribunal, and public discourse in relation to social and economic inequities relating to Māori outcomes?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Absolutely. I can confirm that it’s following all the lines in terms of the Treaty process that the National Party have signed up to. In fact, this process complements the Treaty settlement process and the partnership that we should all want in this House.

Question No. 8—Housing (Public Housing)

8. to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): What is the Government looking for when it says it will “continue to monitor the rental market closely”, and what would that monitoring have to show to convince the Government to develop new rules to ensure reasonable rents?

The Government has made a number of changes to ensure better support for renters to find affordable accommodation during the housing crisis that has built up over the last decade, including limiting rent increases to once a year, banning rental bidding, banning letting fees, removing no-cause terminations, and allowing renters to go to the Tenancy Tribunal to request a rent reduction if they think their rent is too high. We will continue to monitor the rental market closely, including rent increases, turnover of rental properties, investor behaviour, and any changes to total rental stock.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she believe the rental housing market is delivering efficient and fair outcomes?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Could he repeat that question?

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she believe the rental housing market is delivering efficient and fair outcomes?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: What I do believe is that we’ve made multiple changes to improve the security and rights for renters, including limiting rent increases once a year and banning rental bidding. We’re monitoring what happens with rent rises and will take action when necessary. I want to quote from the Stats New Zealand rental price index, which shows for the year to March 2021 a 1.6 percent increase in rents across the country. Now, this is lower than the last few years, which saw increases of around 2 to 5 percent, and the lowest we’ve seen since 2009. I reiterate: if a tenant thinks that their rent is too expensive and not in line with the market rent, they can seek redress from the Tenancy Tribunal.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is it fair that four out of every 10 people who rent have to spend more than 30 percent of their income on rent?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I just want to point to my previous answer. The Stats New Zealand rental price index shows for the year to March 2021 an increase of 1.6 percent in rents across the country. This is lower than for the last few years, which saw increases of around 2 to 5 percent, and is, in fact, the lowest since 2009.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she think it’s reasonable that a landlord can charge $300 a week for a property and then get new tenants and charge them $600 a week for the same property, without making any improvements to the property?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: What I do think is reasonable is the Government’s support for renters in the multiple changes that we have made to improvement rights and securities of renters. Overall, we have aspirations to ensure that, regardless of where your home is—whether it’s a home you own or a home you rent—that that is affordable, and the Government’s housing package goes a long way to addressing this.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Can she confirm that Treasury expects the Government to subsidise people who rent from private landlords by $2.4 billion this year through the accommodation supplement because landlords are charging higher rents than 394,000 people can afford?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The accommodation supplement is a support mechanism that has been in place for many years to support people to have affordable housing.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How many new State homes could be built with the money that the Government currently uses to subsidise unaffordable private rental homes?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I think that’s possibly better directed to the Minister of Housing.

Question No. 9—Social Development and Employment

9. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent reports, if any, has she seen about people entering into employment, education, or training?

Today, the latest household labour force survey was released and it showed a further fall in unemployment down to 4.7 percent from 4.9 percent in the December quarter. This is in line with what we saw in the Ministry of Social Development’s March quarter benefit statistics, with a record number of New Zealanders coming off benefit and nearly 33,000 entering paid work, and it’s despite the effects of COVID-19 or the COVID-19 pandemic. We are seeing a resilient labour market, with record numbers of people finding work. We’re also seeing more people feeling secure in their employment. These are good signs, but, as always, we know there is more work to do.

💬 Glen Bennett: What has the Government done to keep people employed throughout the COVID-19 pandemic?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Government has acted as a team across multiple fronts. We worked quickly to implement the wage subsidy support and we invested in sectors such as sport, arts, and conservation with recovery packages to keep Kiwis in work. On top of that, we’ve continued to strengthen our industry partnerships to ensure that we can work with New Zealand businesses to fill any spaces where there are workforce shortages. By resetting the economic conditions, keeping people in work, and helping people retrain, we are seeing a labour market that is performing above expectations.

💬 Glen Bennett: What is the Government doing to help people who are out of work back into work?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We have many different employment programmes that are designed to help particularly those who are disadvantaged in the labour market. The aim of these programmes is to instil skills and confidence in job seekers so they are work ready, and then we match them up with the employers and the jobs that are available. As the Prime Minister said earlier, we are seeing some great successes with Apprenticeship Boost, Mana in Mahi, He Poutama Rangatahi, Māori trades training, and our industry partnership programme. Our expanded Flexi-wage subsidy is also making a real difference to employers by providing them with incentives to take on staff who need a little bit more support in the workplace.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: If the unemployment rate is the same as it was in September 2017, why, then, in the same time period, are there now 75,000 more on the jobseeker benefit?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The member knows that the household labour force survey is a survey. But what the member also knows is that since mid-January 2021 this year, we’ve actually seen a reduction of around 30,000 people on benefit—down from 390,000 to 360,000. I think that is very clear evidence that despite the pandemic and despite the very dim forecasts that we had in front of us, we are doing pretty well.

💬 Hon Michael Wood: Is it correct that the growth in employment that she has reported to the House today has occurred at the same time as the Government’s made significant increases to the minimum wage?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: That is absolutely right, and despite some of the assertions in the House from the other side that lifting wages could result in a decrease in job opportunities, that is certainly not what we are seeing in New Zealand at the moment.

Question No. 10—Social Development and Employment

10. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: When will the Government start publicly reporting on the number of jobs created from all its employment initiatives to support the 196,806 recipients of jobseeker support into paid employment?

We do report. In fact, a report came out today called the household labour force survey, and it showed more New Zealanders finding paid employment. Unemployment has dropped again—now down to 4.7 percent. It is also important to note that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) does not have any job creation initiatives, but what we do do is we have initiatives that create job-ready people. These job-ready people add value to the businesses who are growing and need staff, but without the whole-of-Government approach to create the economic conditions from which businesses can thrive, we would have nowhere to send our work-ready people. A strong economy is the best job creation scheme possible and our Minister of Finance is delivering. This Government is a team that is making progress on a number of fronts, and today’s unemployment figures show our teamwork is paying off.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: What other employment initiatives are like the shovel-ready projects, where only half the jobs promised in Beehive press releases will be delivered?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think, as I said, there are a range of initiatives. There are so many Ministers and ministries, Government agencies involved in the employment space—everyone from the Department of Conservation, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage preparing people for work, and also the Ministry for Primary Industries. This is an all-of-Government response to the pandemic with regards to supporting people into employment.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: If there are so many Ministers working on this issue, why can’t the Minister deliver a simple answer in terms of how many jobs are being created, when, and where?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: If we just refer to the job vacancies in March on SEEK and on TradeMe—on SEEK, we saw a 55 percent increase in job vacancies, up from a year ago; on TradeMe, we saw a 22 percent increase in job vacancies, up from a year ago. I think that’s pretty good evidence that not only are we doing our job as a Government but businesses have been supported to be resilient during a very difficult time.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: If the Minister is so convinced there are so many jobs out there, why is she failing to support the nearly 200,000 people who don’t have a job, are on jobseeker benefit, and don’t have enough money to put food on the table and a roof over their own heads?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The member knows that we have just gone through—or are coming through—a thing called COVID-19. The forecasts were very dim but we have managed to actually do better than every expectation that was in them. I also want to remind the member, who has been around for a long time, that out of the 200,000 people that are on job seeker, about 118,000 of them are job seekers that are work-ready, and about 78,000 of them are actually job seekers with health conditions or disabilities. We’re committed to working with them to actually support their overall wellbeing so that they can get into employment as well. That’s a very important differentiation that that member always conveniently forgets.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Why can the Minister not provide answers about the number of jobs created by the Employment, Education and Training Ministers Group that she co-chairs, when the focus of that group is to “work with other agencies to develop a job creation measurement framework that will support consistent reporting across the range of job creation programmes.”?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: That work is ongoing. However, what I will say—I will offer one example of many that are in place where agencies are working together. That example is the Apprenticeship Boost where MSD has been working effectively with Education to create opportunities for apprenticeships, and now we have something like, I think, 22,000 new apprentice accounts created because of that. That’s a very big improvement on what we saw under the global financial crisis when there was no investment in apprenticeships and we ended up having big gaps with regards to workforce shortages in trades.

Question No. 11—Health

11. to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about the Government’s response to the Health and Disability System Review?

On Wednesday, 21 April, I announced major reforms to the New Zealand health system that will make healthcare accessible for all New Zealanders. The new health system will replace all district health boards with one national organisation, Health New Zealand; establish a new Māori health authority; establish a new public health agency; and strengthen the Ministry of Health to monitor performance and advise Government on policy matters. The reforms will mean that, for the first time, we will have a truly national health system, and the kind of treatment people get will no longer be determined by where they live.

💬 Dr Tracey McLellan: Why has the Government taken this approach?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The changes are in response to the Health and Disability System Review, which found the public health system was under stress and that a greater emphasis on primary healthcare had the greatest potential to improve New Zealanders’ health. The reforms herald a change in the focus for the health system. We will have the chance to make it a priority to treat more people before they get sick, so they don’t have to go to hospital, thereby taking the pressure off hospitals.

💬 Dr Tracey McLellan: What sort of feedback has he received on the structure of the new health system so far?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Since the announcement two weeks ago, I’ve had the opportunity to meet with many health sector groups and stakeholders, and the feedback I’ve received has been overwhelmingly positive. I’ve also seen comments by Sir John Hansen, the chair of the Canterbury District Health Board, who said, “This will offer a much more coherent view of health, which my experience suggests has been needed for some time.”, and comments by well-known health leader Dr Lester Levy, who said, “In my view these health reforms are well conceived, soundly constructed, genuinely necessary and, with disciplined and outstanding implementation, will make the difference everyone would like to see.”

Question No. 12—Māori Development

12. to the Minister for Māori Development: Ko taku pātai ki te Minita Whanaketanga Māori, ahakoa he moumou taima. [My question is to the Minister of Māori Development, though it may be a waste of time.] Does he believe that his statement that “in every area of New Zealand society, we have institutional racism” includes the Government and Government departments; if not, why not?

In terms of institutional racism, there’s no doubt that it is right across the spectrum in terms of New Zealand society. As far as Government and Government departments go, we have responded positively to the challenge over the last 3½ years. I’m proud of the way this Government is not afraid to roll out programmes that advance the interest of Māori, and in doing so, we are addressing the huge inequities—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Labour Party largesse.

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —in the system, Mr Bridges.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: What programmes or initiatives is this Government actively pursuing to stop racism against tangata whenua, unconscious or otherwise, in their Government, in Government departments?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We have a number of programmes that are addressing inequity and racism. I think that our support for what Minister Davis is doing in the corrections area is incredibly important, and that change in having prisoners address their culture is incredibly important. The Māori Health Authority is a statement about tino rangatiratanga and by Māori, for Māori. Right across the spectrum, we are seeing examples of this, and, as we all know, it’s irritating the National Party very much.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: How are these programmes being measured and by whom, and what recommendations from the He Puapua report, that this Government commissioned, have been agreed to?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Taking the second part of the question—nothing from the He Puapua report has been agreed to. The He Puapua report is an introduction in terms of a kōrero—it’s a starting kōrero. I thank that group very much for the mahi that they have done, but we’ve got a lot of work to do that is not Government policy but we will be developing that later on. And I forgot the first part of your question.

💬 Hon Kelvin Davis: To the Minister: what advice would he have for organisations that are clearly suffering from institutionalised racism, who have few Māori amongst their ranks, who have little or no knowledge of Te Tiriti, whose leadership constantly refuses the need to support Māori aspirations—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member was probably right for about one of the—you’re allowed one leg to a supplementary; there were about three there and I think the member went—no, I’m not going to let him answer it. The member went well off track and was a bit too transparent.

Tāmati Coffey: What steps has the Government taken to address some of the inequities that Māori face?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We have been a very supportive Government in terms of te ao Māori. We’re addressing the inequities that Māori are facing every day. We’ve addressed the wonderful Māori social procurement target for the public sector, to improve the barriers that Māori have in its accessing contracts—in fact, 5 percent. We’ve put record investment into Whānau Ora, and Mr Waititi should be very supportive of that. To support by Māori, for Māori solutions, we’ve announced the Māori Health Authority to address inequities Māori face in the health system. And I have to say, we’re very proud to have announced Matariki and also our commitment to teach New Zealand history, both Māori and Pākehā in our schools—and Pasifika.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Why did the Government transfer this question from the Prime Minister, when the question directly asked for her views on whether racism exists within her Government and Government departments?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! That question’s not in order. This is not a responsibility of this Minister.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, please. Why is the Speaker allowing the racism that is coming into this House in the treatment of tangata whenua that we’ve been experiencing and listening to solidly for the last two days?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I’m assuming that that’s a point of order. Applying the rules or the kawa of this House to all members is not something I regard as racist.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, please. I do want to clarify: is Te Tiriti respected in the basis of this Government and this House or not?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, that is certainly the subject of a PhD dissertation and not an off-the-cuff Speaker’s ruling. [Interruption] The member, I think, knows that if she tries again, she’s being disorderly. Now, I know that her colleague likes being disorderly and likes being tossed out, but I don’t really want to do it to her.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Point of order. You were saying that the answers are for the betterment of the whole of New Zealand. Over the last two days, all I have heard is Māori, Māori, Māori bashing in this House. [Interruption] We don’t hear Pākehā—we only hear Māori, Māori, Māori bashing. So we want an explanation of why that is happening.

💬 SPEAKER: I think members pointing fingers at each other doesn’t really help in this particular circumstance. I think the questions, the answers, and the debate is a responsibility for the members who take part, and the question of racism is something that I look out for very carefully. I think it’s fair to say, though, that people have different standards, and balancing racism against the ability of members to express their views and the right to free speech in this House is something that requires a balance. Certainly, it’s something which I would take a lot of care on intervening on. I think if the member is unhappy with the actions of particular members, then the appropriate thing to do is to seek appointments with them and to talk it through with them. But I think from this point, we run the risk of becoming disorderly. The member, I understand, has one further supplementary question. Does he wish to use it?

💬 Rawiri Waititi: No.

💬 Hon Aupito William Sio: To the Minister, why is it important for you to tackle institutional racism that arises from this House?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I want to—

💬 SPEAKER: I’m sorry; I’m going to ask the member to repeat the question. I was slightly diverted.

💬 Hon Aupito William Sio: I’m asking the Minister: why is it important for him to tackle institutional racism head-on that arises from this House?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! It might be around the edge of his responsibilities, but it is my responsibility in some ways, and individual members’, but it’s not something that this Minister has responsibility for.