Oral Questions

1. to the Minister for the Environment: Does he have confidence that the Resource Management Act 1991 functioned appropriately in relation to the consenting process for the Kennedy Point marina at Pūtiki Bay; if so, why?

It is for the courts to decide whether the actions taken under the Resource Management Act (RMA) were done so appropriately. The RMA decision was made legally by the democratically elected council via their planning department and has been considered in appeals in the Environment Court, the High Court, and the Supreme Court.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Government’s resource management reform address the systemic power imbalance between mana whenua and local communities on one side and developers on the other?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: To the extent that that relates to the primary question, I’m not going to engage in that debate because those issues were, no doubt, traversed in the court decisions that considered the appeals, and for reasons of comity I am not going to adjudicate on what they have.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he think it acceptable that a development on Auckland’s Hauraki Gulf that limits use and public access is allowed to affect the habitat of taonga kororā penguins that are sensitive to human activity; if so, why?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I’ve got great confidence that those very issues were considered by the consent authorities. I would note that while some in this House might desire that the executive rule by fiat, I support the executive abiding by the rule of law.

💬 Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Does he have confidence that allowing the development of Pūtiki upholds the Crown’s obligations to Ngāti Paoa as mana whenua under Te Tiriti o Waitangi; and if so, why?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Again, my opinion as Minister is irrelevant. I am bound by the rule of law.

💬 Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Is he committed to ensuring that the framework for Ahu Moana areas announced yesterday in the Government’s Revitalising the Gulf strategy enables true partnership with mana whenua to ensure coastal development accords with community and mana whenua needs; if so, how?

💬 SPEAKER: Before I call the Minister to answer the question—because I’m not right across the documentation that was issued yesterday—I would like an assurance that there is a direct relationship between the question and the supplementary.

Chlöe Swarbrick: The response to Sea Change Plan, that report as released today was done in collaboration between the Minister and Dr Ayesha Verrall and their respective—

💬 SPEAKER: No, no, I certainly saw the press statements. The question is whether the primary question relates to that. It is a very narrow primary question.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Yep, and the primary question to that effect—under the Resource Management Act, my understanding and our understanding is that consideration has to be given to mana whenua, in particular. You may or may not be aware that there is currently—and the courts themselves have notified that there actually wasn’t thorough consideration or consultation with both of the trust boards.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m going to ask Dr Kerekere to ask the supplementary question again, and I’ll make a decision.

💬 Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Is he committed to ensuring that the framework for Ahu Moana areas announced yesterday in the Government’s Revitalising the Gulf strategy enables true partnership with mana whenua to ensure coastal development accords with community and mana whenua needs; if so, how?

💬 SPEAKER: Look, I’ll fall right on the outside line and allow the Minister to answer it. It is, strictly speaking, out of order but I’ll ask the Minister to address it.

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, I refer the member to my earlier answers, and I don’t think this supplementary really relates to them. But given that the question has been asked about Ahu Moana practices that are envisaged as part of the response on the Hauraki Gulf—what’s envisaged there is that local communities who are facing pressures in respect of local fisheries depletion can work together to try and address those local fisheries depletions in a way that’s difficult under the broader quota management system provisions.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will he or anybody else from the Government commit to visiting Pūtiki Bay to hear from uri o Ngāti Paoa and locals about long-held concerns with the proposed marine development?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, I’ve already met with representatives from them. I had a recent meeting that was held in Auckland. I’ve also been lobbied by people outside the launch of the revitalisation of the Gulf response. I’m well informed of these issues, but, I repeat, I’m bound by the rule of law, and a legal decision has been taken and has been appealed up through the courts, and I think it is beholden on everyone in this Parliament to respect the judiciary and their decisions rather than to rule by executive fiat to overrule them.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order. The question to the Minister was whether he will commit to visiting Pūtiki Bay.

💬 SPEAKER: I thought “meeting with” was the question asked originally.

Chlöe Swarbrick: No, Mr Speaker, the question was: will he commit to visiting and speaking with those who are directly impacted?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, and the Minister indicated that he had spoken with—so that question has not only been addressed, it’s been answered.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes—particularly, the Government’s very recent announcement to move Wellington to alert level 2, given the recent visit to Wellington by an individual who has since tested positive for COVID-19. Events like this are why we have the alert level framework, which allows us to change alert levels to better respond to possible outbreaks of COVID-19 and ensure we mitigate the potential effects of COVID-19. This builds on the precautionary approach we’ve taken to COVID-19 to date and helps us to continue with our elimination strategy, which is ultimately the best response for health and our economy.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Did Cabinet make the decision to have a mental health stocktake, as announced by Andrew Little yesterday?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the member will have heard the Minister say, he’s been canvassing a range of options to ensure that the decisions that were made as part of Budget 2019 have been rolled out as we expect. The member will recall that yesterday, I traversed some of those announcements, and I think it’s helpful to remind the member that of the $1.9 billion that was announced in that Budget, we were very clear that the primary focus of those spending decisions was about building the fence at the top of the cliff. We wanted to make sure that we were very early on creating alternative and early access for those who need it. As the member will have already heard me say yesterday, 10,000 sessions a month are being provided as a result. On the issue of capital roll-out, $233 million was part of Budget 2019 on capital projects. Across those capital projects, they have now been allocated, by and large, by the Government. But, again, building facilities—as the member well knows—does take longer than 18 months.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I specifically asked did Cabinet make the decision, and got everything except that.

💬 SPEAKER: No, I thought it was addressed right at the beginning of the—

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Was the answer yes or no?

💬 Nicola Willis: Is that a second supplementary?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the member can ask again, if she wishes—

💬 Hon Judith Collins: All right, I will then.

💬 SPEAKER: —but can I just make one suggestion: that it will be easier for everyone to hear if the member behind her just winds it back a bit.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: When was she informed of the decision to have a mental health stocktake, as announced by Andrew Little?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The decision of a Minister to look across the spending profile of his portfolio is one that he can take, and, as I have said, the Minister has been talking openly about those areas where investment has absolutely met our expectations but also around the $233 million where it has taken some time to design and build, because, of course, we started from scratch. That member’s Government had no such plan to ensure that we had adequate and dignified acute mental health care. But if the member interprets decent mental health care in this country to be what we solely do at crisis, then, obviously, the member has not been talking to the sector about what needs to change.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: So did she find out from the media as well?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does she believe her Government has acted urgently to roll out its 2017 Speech from the Throne commitment to have free mental health services for all under-25-year-olds when, four years on, there’s only still a pilot in place?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Two parts to my answer here: firstly, we have committed to rolling out additional services across our school-based services, so that’s our way of making sure that no matter where you are in the country, our young people are able to access that form of primary mental health care. So we’ve been expanding those services over time. The reason for that is research tells us that a first manifestation of the need for care sometimes will come through those school-based health services. The second thing that we’ve been doing is making sure that we’re supporting the likes of Youthline, and also, through our primary mental health care roll-out, we have been supporting youth-specific youth services. Seventeen so far have been contracted across 15 DHBs, with over 60 contracted full-time equivalents and over—as I’ve said previously—10,000 services delivered as part of that roll-out. The member is talking about one particular project and that is Piki, and that is something that has been supported by the Green Party. That’s been in this particular region—again, looking at the results of that to determine whether or not that ongoing roll-out, the impact that that will have for young people. But I totally reject the idea that we haven’t changed up the service provision for young people.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: When she said that the key test for Budget 2019 was “Will someone in the very early stages of mental health issues be able to get the help they need?”, does she think her Government has met that test with just five extra beds being added and some patients having to sleep on the floor?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I would actually just go back to my quote there: $1.9 billion—a significant proportion of that was about developing primary mental health care. We now, in over 200 sites, across 16 DHBs, and covering an enrolled population of 1.4 million people, with 360 fulltime-equivalents, have delivered 120,000 sessions of primary mental health care that did not exist before that Budget. Building the fence at the top of the cliff was the focus there. If the member thinks that continuing to allow people to fall into crisis is the way to build a mental health system that we can be proud of, then I’d say that, unfortunately, we have very different visions. At the same time, yes, we need to rebuild acute services. Currently, we have a new build of the adult mental health facility in Waikato, in Lakes, in Mid-Central; refurbishment in Tai Rāwhiti and in Waitematā. That includes approved Crown funding committed of $233 million.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Why was it necessary for the Government to commit $1.9 billion to mental health in Budget 2019?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because of the lack of investment under the last Government. That funding was dedicated towards the impacts of addiction. It was dedicated towards the mental health impacts and consequences of homelessness, of there being a lack of forensic mental health care in prisons. We inherited, for instance, a new prison build that was a mega-prison without any concern for whether or not we were dealing with the forensic mental health issues that exist within it. And, in addition, we are starting to front end those services with primary mental health, which just had not been considered before that.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: What does she say to professor of wellbeing Arthur Grimes, who observed that when she addressed family members of suicide victims on the Parliament forecourt and told them, “When I speak about this issue, I speak not as a politician but as a human being.”, it was, in Professor Grimes’ words, “marketing over substance”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No one with personal experience of suicide in their family or friend network would ever describe the way they feel about that issue in that way, and I imagine every single person in this House has a story. But, speaking to what we have done as a Government, 74 Māori initiatives have been funded through the Māori Suicide Prevention Community Fund; 18 Pacific initiatives have been funded through the Pacific Suicide Prevention Community Fund. We’ve enhanced a suicide prevention information service for whānau. We’ve worked hard with DHBs to provide funding for dedicated suicide postvention, because it was something that was raised with us—that there was not enough support for those who had experience of suicide in their whānau. And, of course, we’re doing what we can to learn from the past with the Coronial Suspected Suicide Data Sharing Service, and, of course, we’ve set up the Suicide Prevention Office. That’s all been since a Budget in 2019. No one denies there’s more to do, but we have done a significant amount.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Why did Cabinet sign off a car regulation of 105 grams per kilometre by 2025 after the Ministry of Transport advised such a level would be counterproductive and would lead to people holding on to older, dirtier, and unsafe vehicles longer?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My recollection of the advice that we received from our officials around the Clean Car Standard—which, I note, the member is only just now commenting on with a press statement today; it was announced some time ago—was that we needed to couple together the standard with also an incentives regime so that we encouraged a switch in car and vehicle use and choice at the point of purchase. And so that’s why we made the decision, after receiving advice from officials, that would introduce the Clean Car Discount, which works hand in hand with the Clean Car Standard.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Is it correct that, under her policies, someone who imports a typical ute in 2025 will have to pay $3,000 for the car tax and another $9,000 on top of that under the car regulation—that’s $12,000 in total on top of the cost?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member misunderstands the way that the Clean Car Standard applies. So it allows, over a dealership, for them to make decisions around importation that means that if they are importing higher-emissions vehicles, if they are at the same time importing lower-emissions vehicles, then they can avoid the fees framework. And so that is the way the standard works, and I imagine that for many dealerships, given that this is something that is in place in almost every other country bar Russia and, I believe, Australia, this will not be unusual to many operators, because it is in place in most countries we compare ourselves to.

Question No. 3—Finance

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

The latest Westpac McDermott Miller survey shows consumer confidence is on the rise, up 1.9 points to 107.1 in June. This is just below the survey’s long-term average of 110.7. A score above 100 indicates that more people are optimistic than pessimistic about the economy in the coming year. Not only are New Zealanders more positive about the outlook for the economy, they also expect their own financial situation will continue to improve. The survey does, however, show that the rise in confidence is uneven, which is in line with the different impacts of COVID-19.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What other reports has he seen on the economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The economic recovery has been supported by the manufacturing and services sector. The BNZ Business New Zealand Performance of Manufacturing Index (PMI) remains firmly in expansionary territory, rising 0.3 points to 58.6 in May. The index compares very favourably to its long-term average of 53.1. The BNZ Business New Zealand Performance of Services Index (PSI) stood at 56.1 in May, and while the index did decline from its highest ever recorded level in April, it is still above its long-term average of 53.9. BNZ economists noted that the current strength in the PSI and PMI say good things for economic growth over the coming quarters. While our economy is robust, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic means the environment does continue to be volatile, as we discovered with the alert level change in Wellington today. We cannot be complacent.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What support is available to businesses and workers if there is a change in alert levels such as what has happened today in Wellington?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Obviously, we continue to have both the Short-term Absence Payment and the COVID-19 Leave Support Scheme, which are designed to support people if they have to either take tests and self-isolate or if they have COVID and they have to take time off work. Were the alert level change that has happened in Wellington today to last longer than seven days, this would trigger the resurgence support payment that is available for people right across New Zealand if alert levels rise.

Question No. 4—Transport

4. to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions about the Clean Car Programme?

Yes, particularly that the clean car import standard will result in average fuel savings for families of nearly $7,000 over the lifetime of their vehicles and stop over 3 million tonnes of carbon pollution going into our atmosphere.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Can he confirm there are no petrol, diesel, or hybrid seven-seaters or vans currently on the market that meet his standard; only plug-ins, which the Ministry of Transport says costs between $20,000 and $40,000 more?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Across the different types of makes and models, there are a range of vehicles on the market. I do note that one of the points of the standard is that it supports importers to bring in a wider range of low-emissions vehicles. That is one of the policy intentions of the policy, and one of the reasons that New Zealand currently has one of the dirtiest fleets in the world, and the reasons that New Zealanders don’t have access to those cleanest vehicles is because, as the Prime Minister said, we are one of only three countries in the world without such a standard.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why did he ignore Ministry of Transport advice in December 2020 that a 2025 time frame would “disrupt vehicle supply in the short term, push up vehicle prices, and slow the turnover of the existing fleet”?

💬 SPEAKER: OK, I’m going to ask the member to rephrase the question. Maybe if he said, “Did he ignore … and, if so, why?” he would get there.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Did the Minister ignore Ministry of Transport advice that a 2025 time frame “would disrupt vehicle supply in the short term, push up vehicle prices, and slow the turnover of the existing fleet”, and, if so, why?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Mr Speaker, a very well-crafted question, and in answer to it, what I can say to the member is that he’s commenting on a piece of policy advice that was received in late 2020 which doesn’t fully reflect the decisions that Cabinet actually made on the policy and a range of changes that were made to the policy after that point. I note from the regulatory impact assessment that officials prepared, it says, “The available evidence suggests that if price rises do occur, they are likely to be minimal and over time will reduce.” It also notes that “A meta-analysis of CO2 standards in OECD and non-OECD countries suggests that they do not necessarily lead to noticeable price increases.”

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, in respect of that answer, does he agree that the advice quoted in the previous supplementary was on a 2025 time frame, and did the Government implement a 2025 time frame?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: It is correct that the Government implemented a 2025 time frame, but we made a number of other changes based on advice and consultation which means that the policy can be more effectively implemented. These include changes such as halving the fee levels that were originally proposed and consulted upon, making changes to the way that the targets worked to have a split target between light vehicles and commercial vehicles, and allowing overachievement to be banked and transferred.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has the Minister approached the Prime Minister after she said yesterday that LDV will have an electric ute in the next 12 to 24 months to inform her that there is no confirmed date for markets that drive on the left-hand side, and their electric ute is two-wheel drive?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I can confirm that on public record, both LDV and the sector have confirmed that LDV’s intention is to bring such a hybrid vehicle on to the New Zealand market in the next 12 to 24 months, and that a range of other importers are working very hard to do the same.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will a new Toyota Hilux cost more than $12,300 more in 2025 as a result of the combined effects of the Clean Car Programme?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The member’s supposition is entirely hypothetical, but I do not expect that to be the case at all. The member, as the Prime Minister said, is misunderstanding how the Clean Car Standard works, which takes an averaging approach across the fleet that any importer brings into the country at any one time. I want to note a comment that was made on record which I think is correct, which says that “A move from petrol and diesel to low emission transport is a natural evolution, and it is our aim to encourage that switch sooner, rather than later.” I agree with that comment made by the Hon Simon Bridges a few years ago. The difference is that this Government’s actually bringing in policies to bring it about.

💬 Hon David Parker: Is the Minister aware that car firms like Toyota don’t like handing across market share or money to competitors like Ford, and, therefore, one of the behavioural responses he expects as Minister of Transport is that the vehicles that Toyota brings in will be aiming to meet the average that is enabled by his Clean Car Standard?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: That is quite correct, and it’s inherent in the design of the Clean Car Standard that we’re providing importers with a tool to go back to manufacturers to actually bring in cleaner vehicles into New Zealand, and it will be in their interest to do so. Again, I make the point that every country in the OECD except Australia, New Zealand, and Russia currently has one of these schemes, and the reason why New Zealand has one of the dirtiest fleets in the world is because we don’t. If we don’t take action on this issue, we will become the dumping ground for the world’s dirtiest vehicles, and New Zealanders don’t want that.

💬 David Seymour: Do he or other members of his Cabinet often have to get basic microeconomic lessons from David Parker?

💬 SPEAKER: Oh no, no, no, no, no—not a chance. [Interruption] Well, and, I mean, I have recently reflected on the improving relationship with Mr Seymour—without commenting on the relationship suggested yesterday—but I think Mr Seymour did know that that question was out of order when he asked it.

💬 David Seymour: No.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I’m surprised.

Question No. 5—Housing

5. to the Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has she made about the Housing Acceleration Fund?

Yesterday, I announced the launch of the $1 billion Infrastructure Acceleration Fund, a key component of the $3.8 billion Housing Acceleration Fund. For decades, we have dealt with a patchwork system of infrastructure investment. Central government investment in infrastructure was identified by local councils and others as one of the key actions that the Government needs to take to increase the supply of housing in the short term. This is a Government focused on the future, and we are investing in the critical infrastructure needed to accelerate the delivery of new housing.

💬 Glen Bennett: Where is it intended that the infrastructure be delivered, and what kind of increase in new housing should it support?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The fund is designed to support the provision of new housing supply right across the country, according to housing need. That is from urban centres to the regions, as well. In major urban environments, such as Auckland, Tauranga, Wellington, and Christchurch, projects will be expected to deliver at least 200 additional homes. While in urban centres, such as Rotorua, Palmerston North, and Nelson, projects will be expected to deliver at least 100 homes. In smaller centres, the requirement will be set at 30 homes. The fund could deliver housing right across the housing continuum, from public housing to affordable rental homes to market homes for homeownership. I do note that the fund seeks to enable affordable housing.

💬 Glen Bennett: How will the Government ensure a good regional spread and that funding won’t go exclusively to major urban centres?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Infrastructure Acceleration Fund is designed with regional spread of infrastructure investment across New Zealand in mind. We’ve been working closely with Local Government New Zealand, since we announced our funding in March of this year, to identify projects in our towns, smaller cities, and regions that require infrastructure funding to accelerate the building of new supply in areas that are also experiencing a housing shortage.

Question No. 6—Environment (Biodiversity)

6. to the Associate Minister for the Environment (Biodiversity): What actions, if any, has he taken to respond to the concerns of Māori in Te Tai Tokerau in regard to the draft National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity, and to ensure that the establishment of Significant Natural Areas does not undermine the rights and interests of mana whenua and Māori landowners?

Māori land ownership goes hand in hand with the protection of indigenous biodiversity. The requirement for councils to identify, classify, and protect areas with significant habitats of plants and animals has existed under the Resource Management Act for decades and there are many significant natural areas (SNAs) throughout Aotearoa. However, a lack of guidelines on how councils should do this has led to inconsistent approaches and a worsening situation for our indigenous biodiversity. In Te Tai Tokerau, Māori have quite rightly raised concerns about the council’s failure to engage properly over SNAs. I have welcomed the council’s decision to pause and reset their processes. The issue in the Far North has not arisen because of the draft National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity; it has arisen because of a poor process carried out locally, and the next version of the national policy statement (NPS) can help to fix that. It will do this by enabling a more flexible approach to Māori land which recognises the rights and interests of whānau, hapū, and iwi to develop their land and to look after indigenous biodiversity. I have instructed officials to ensure that the next version of the NPS will address the concerns raised by Māori in Te Tai Tokerau and to avoid similar issues happening again. Throughout this process, we have listened closely to the feedback provided by iwi Māori, and the next draft of the NPS will be available for further comment soon. Once finalised, the NPS will be a crucial part of our efforts to reverse the decline in Aotearoa New Zealand’s unique biodiversity and to protect our natural taonga for years to come.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Wasn’t this fiasco inevitable given that the draft national policy statement lacks teeth in terms of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and fails to recognise the customary, proprietary, and decision-making rights and interests of tangata whenua as they relate to indigenous biodiversity?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: When the draft policy statement was circulated in 2018-19, there were about 7,000 submissions made, including a number from iwi organisations, and we’ve listened very closely to the feedback that we have received about that. One of the reasons why the NPS has been delayed was so that we could do further work on exactly those provisions that the member is concerned about.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he think it’s possible to achieve environmental protection and restoration of indigenous biodiversity without recognising the kaitiaki and rangatira rights and interests of mana whenua?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: No, absolutely I do not believe that. I believe that when the next draft of the national policy statement is circulated in a couple of months’ time, that member will, I hope, see that the role that Māori have as kaitiaki is well recognised within the new draft of that national policy statement.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will he support an amendment to the draft national policy statement that requires the explicit agreement and consent of mana whenua before significant natural areas are identified and approved; and, if not, why not?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, I think the member is referring to the exposure draft that was circulated in 2018-19. There’s actually been a significant amount of work done to that which is not yet out in the public domain, because the new draft has not yet been to Cabinet and has not yet been circulated. But I do hope that the member will see that her concerns are reflected in the new draft when it is circulated.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How will the Minister ensure that mana whenua have prior knowledge and agreement of what he’s going to do?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: Can I ask the member to clarify the question in terms of the last part of that question?

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Sorry, my apologies. You’ve asked that you’re going to review it, and you’ve advised that there will be change. So I’m just asking how you will be engaging with mana whenua and Māori land owners to ensure that that happens correctly.

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: I think there’s two components to that. One is that when the new draft of the national policy statement is circulated, there will be a process by which we engage with Māori on that, so that people can see what has changed since the first exposure draft, and how that feedback that the Government has received has been taken into account, and that is absolutely my intention. The second part of that is that the national policy statement itself contains direction to councils on how they are supposed to engage with iwi Māori in the identification and protection of areas of significance.

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Can the Minister confirm that the collaborative working group that contributed to preparing the new draft National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity included a broad range of stakeholder groups, including Federated Farmers and representatives from the Iwi Leaders Group?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: Yes, I can confirm that, and in addition to having the active involvement of the iwi chairs through the Pou Taiao Iwi Leaders Group, the predecessor to the language in the National Policy Statement was drafted by Māori as well.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Minister’s earlier statement that “Māori land ownership goes hand in hand with conserving indigenous biodiversity” apply equally to non-Māori land ownership, and if not, why not?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: There are different provisions in the draft statement for Māori land as opposed to general and other land classes, and that is, I think, in recognition of two things, one of which is the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi itself, and also a recognition that Māori land owners have been disadvantaged under the status quo.

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Is the Minister aware of exemplars where private landowners have participated in restoring the biodiversity nature of their land interests in places like Taranaki?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: Yes, I am aware that there are cases around the country where this has been done well, and it is unfortunate that they have been overshadowed recently where it has not been done well. The Waikato Regional Council runs an indigenous biodiversity programmed called Restoring nature, connecting communities. The programme began in 2016 and is funded by the 2015-2025 Long-term Plan. It’s an implementation framework for groups such as territorial authorities, mana whenua, interest groups, and landowners to work together more effectively to protect and enhance indigenous biodiversity in the Waikato.

Question No. 7—COVID-19 Response

7. to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Does he have confidence in the Government’s COVID-19 response, considering a positive case travelling between Sydney and Wellington?

Yes.

💬 David Seymour: How many tests does he believe will be carried out over the next four days while Wellington is at alert level 2?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t have a particular target for that. I imagine that the number will be significantly higher than normal. What we are saying is that people who are showing symptoms should stay home, isolate, and get a test. The other people that should get a test are the people who are identified through contact tracing as having been at a location of interest at the same time as the positive case, who has now returned to Australia.

💬 David Seymour: Why could he not express confidence earlier after his ministerial statement in the ability of contact tracers to reach the gold standard of 80 percent end-to-end contact tracing within 96 hours, as set out by the Ayesha Verrall report a year ago?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Ultimately, because the contact tracers are not completely in control of all of the variables that will contribute to whether or not they can fulfil those objectives.

💬 David Seymour: Why set a target if the Minister will always say that it wasn’t reached because of variables beyond the Government’s control?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Ultimately, the targets, or the performance measures, if you like, measure risk, and the more we can achieve the performance measures specified, the lower we can make the risk. Having said that, if we don’t find out about a case for a prolonged period of time, or if people don’t share information about their close contacts in a timely way with us, then the contact tracers won’t be able to reach those performance measures. Sometimes people do forget who they’ve been in contact with, and it’s only after some time that they may remember them.

Question No. 8—COVID-19 Response

8. to the Minister for COVID19 Response: What progress has the Government recently made on the roll-out of New Zealand’s vaccination programme?

I am very pleased to acknowledge a very significant milestone in our Pfizer vaccine campaign: one million doses of the Pfizer vaccine have now been administered in New Zealand. To put that into context, it took us 48 days to deliver the first 100,000 doses. It then only took 13 further days to reach 200,000. It then took 28 days to reach 500,000, followed by 33 days to hit one million. That signs that the vaccination campaign is ramping up. Our capacity is growing and we are very confident that we’ll be able to offer all New Zealanders a vaccine by the end of the year.

💬 Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How are DHBs currently tracking towards meeting their planned deliveries for the roll-out of the vaccination programme?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As of midnight last night, 637,847 New Zealanders have received their first dose of the vaccine; 381,517 people have been fully vaccinated—meaning that they’ll be receiving the maximum protection after having two doses. We’re making really good progress overall. DHBs are tracking, at the moment, 7.5 percent ahead of the plan whilst continuing to carefully manage the available stock. We received a further 50,000 doses from Pfizer this week, and as we head into July we are expecting the size of our deliveries to increase.

💬 Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How is the Government managing the scale-up of the vaccination programme?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: DHBs have been planning carefully to scale up the vaccination programme as the supplies of the vaccine increase. This will include bringing on board vaccination sites, such as GP practices and other primary care settings like pharmacies, for example. DHBs have been training their workforce—there are now over 8,000 people trained to undertake COVID-19 vaccinations—and they are well positioned to start increasing the volume of vaccinations from mid-July, when the significant delivery volumes will start to arrive.

💬 Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How is work progressing on a national online booking system, and will this support the vaccination roll-out?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The national immunisation booking system known as Book My Vaccine has been developed, and it allows people to directly book their vaccines. To date, there are seven district health boards with 33 vaccination sites on the system. There are 31,422 active bookings within the vaccination system. The remaining DHBs are being onboarded over the next two weeks, four DHBs will be on board by the end of this week, and six further DHBs in the week of 28 June and 5 July.

Question No. 9—Housing

9. to the Minister of Housing: Does she have confidence in Kāinga Ora, and what specific areas of Kāinga Ora’s performance, if any, has she or her officials at the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development identified as needing improvement?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes. As with all entities, there are areas of focus I have outlined in the letter of expectations to the agency, including an explicit expectation on increasing the number of new-build activity in meeting our build programme targets. In addition, I have asked Kāinga Ora to focus on growing its new functions, including supporting Māori aspirations and protecting Māori interests, in line with the Maihi framework, and ensuring Kāinga Ora participates fully in the development of the Government policy statement on housing and urban development. COVID-19 has presented challenges for the delivery across performance measures, and the latest quarterly report from Kāinga Ora highlights some of the areas such as progress against the healthy homes targets and build targets, which Kāinga Ora have provided me with a recent update on progress and mitigations that have been put in place. I have reiterated my expectation that although current year targets may not be met, the overarching targets over multiple years remain intact. In addition, Kāinga Ora is committed to enhancing its reporting to me to reflect the direction of travel signalled.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does she think it is cost-effective for Kāinga Ora to spend $25,000 each month on a sponsorship arrangement with a media outlet that includes editorial content generation, and if so, why?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The arrangement that the member is referring to is an arrangement with OneRoof for paid content highlighting the work that is done in the communities that Kāinga Ora is building. This, of course, builds on a period of work that Kāinga Ora and its predecessor organisations began in 2015. Kāinga Ora has indeed had a marketing budget to highlight the positive nature of its communities. It is doing this because we actually have market houses that need to be sold in there, and some of this money is recovered from developers in there.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does she think it was appropriate for Kāinga Ora to have used taxpayer money to pay for articles on the website OneRoof without ensuring it was clear these stories were paid for?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What the member is talking about is whether or not there was the media outlet in question and their editorial policy. But Kāinga Ora had a contractual relationship with the media outlet. It is not their responsibility to ensure that the media outlet advertises that that is paid content. I have discussed this with Kāinga Ora. They have raised it with the media outlet in question, but I have no ministerial responsibility for that editorial policy.

💬 Nicola Willis: Why did she not disclose Kāinga Ora’s paid promotions in advertisements with OneRoof when I specifically asked her about them in a written question on 7 May 2021?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I invite the member to send through that as a written question, and I will have a look at it. But I answered the question with all the information I had at hand.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does she think it was appropriate for Kāinga Ora to pay a media outlet for an advertisement profiling an individual who was in the midst of a Labour Party candidate selection process?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The profile that the member is referring to is a profile piece that was done in May on Arena Williams. This was organised before she was selected to be the Labour Party candidate for Manurewa. She disclosed the fact to Kāinga Ora that she was indeed going for selection in Manurewa. There was a discussion, and the fact that the piece profiled the work that this woman was doing in her community through lockdown—the positive work she was doing. In fact, “A driving force in the group was Arena Williams. She and her partner Max are both lawyers and committed to Hobsonville Point — and … there is a strong community spirit, supported by an active Residents’ [Association]”. I guess—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! All right. I’m not quite sure—well, I’m sure that the member has answered the question, and that’s enough.

Question No. 10—Emergency Management

10. to the Acting Minister for Emergency Management: How is the Government supporting communities in Auckland that have been affected by the Papatoetoe tornado?

Firstly, I’d like to, on behalf of the House, express our sympathy for the family of Janesh Prasad, who passed away as a result of the tornado at the weekend at the Wiri container storage facility. The tornado at the weekend has been a distressing event, with a number of people injured, many lives disrupted, and many homes and businesses damaged. On Sunday, the Government announced $100,000 to a mayoral relief fund to support Auckland communities impacted by the tornado, matching a $100,000 contribution from the Auckland Council, who will determine how that is best spent. A range of additional support has been made available to the impacted communities by the likes of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), including civil defence payments and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s temporary accommodation service, with 94 people in emergency accommodation as a result of the tornado as of last night.

💬 Arena Williams: How well did the civil defence emergency management system perform in the initial process?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The system stood up well, and I’d like to acknowledge the emergency services for doing a superb job after the event on Saturday morning. An incident control point to coordinate the response was established quickly in Papatoetoe, and the Auckland emergency management system established welfare and information points quickly after that. There is an 0800 number, which is 0800 22 22 00, which is a civil defence line that continues to be monitored 24/7, if anyone has any welfare needs as a result of the tornado. Initial building assessments were carried out by fire and emergency urban search and rescue teams, followed up by the council’s building assessment teams, that are now largely complete, and final building damage classifications will be confirmed in the coming days.

💬 Arena Williams: What recovery work is under way across agencies?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Relevant agencies continue to coordinate the recovery, including emergency housing, as I mentioned earlier, and key welfare issues, and are ready to provide further support if that is needed. The Auckland Emergency Management welfare service and the Ministry of Social Development have commenced planning for longer-term temporary accommodation for those who require it, because many of those residents in affected homes will be out of them for many, many weeks. The Ministry of Social Development is also providing support by way of its housing broker service in their Papatoetoe site to assist those households, and MSD is also supporting a group of vulnerable people who are being relocated to alternative accommodation.

Question No. 11—Health

11. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions with regard to mental health?

Yes.

💬 Matt Doocey: When he said today the five extra acute beds were fictitious because “there is no single bed as a result of the $1.9 billion.”, could he please clarify for the House: is the number of extra acute beds zero or five?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The only thing fictitious is about some of that member’s assertions. The point is this: that member and others have said that as a consequence of the $1.9 billion investment in 2019, five beds have been added to acute mental health services. That simply is not correct, and we know that’s not correct because that member also says that the $235 million provided for in the $1.9 billion programme for acute mental health service facility builds has not seen a commencement of any of the builds. The extra beds that have been provided for acute mental health services in the last two or three years are as a result of the increased ring-fenced funding to DHBs as they improve their mental health facilities. Those beds have been added, and more beds will be added as a consequence of the other investments, including the $1.9 billion investment that this Government has made, because this Government takes mental health seriously.

💬 Matt Doocey: Well, in light of that answer around accuracy of information, why did he say yesterday the 38-bed Counties Manukau mental health facility didn’t open until 2020 when, in fact, the then health Minister, David Clark, opened it in November 2008, just three years after National started building it?

💬 SPEAKER: 2018.

💬 Matt Doocey: Oh, sorry—2018.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, I refer to the information or the advice I’ve received that that facility opened in September 2020. In fact, shortly after I became the Minister of Health, I was asked to be part of a formal opening ceremony. It wasn’t possible at the time that the DHB wanted it, but that facility, I am advised, was functional and effective from September 2020.

💬 Matt Doocey: When he told media he had “regular weekly meetings” with health officials about mental health, has he been asking at these meetings for an update on building new facilities or why next to no money had been spent?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: It is simply incorrect to say that next to no money has been spent on mental health facilities. If the member is referring to the $235 million which is part of the $1.9 billion programme that was approved in the 2019 Budget, I can tell that member that the DHBs where the mental health upgrades are happening have spent in excess of $9 million in doing the planning and preparation so far of the rebuild and upgrades of their facilities.

💬 Hon Peeni Henare: Can the Minister confirm that mental health funding for kaupapa Māori initiatives to stop Māori ending up in acute mental services has been successful under this Government and there are more opportunities in the coming months?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I can confirm that new funding, additional funding, has been provided to a number of kaupapa Māori health services specifically for mental health and addiction services, and the advice I’ve received is that that is making a material difference to many whānau right now.

💬 Matt Doocey: Why did he say that Mental Health Foundation CEO Shaun Robinson was wrong to say the Government had no plan for mental health when just this morning he himself said, “I want to know what the plan ahead looks like, and I just don’t have that reassurance from the ministry yet.”, and will he apologise to Shaun Robinson?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member knows that’s out of order, doesn’t he? He can count to two. I’ll let the Minister answer it. In future, I’ll consider it disorderly if the member asks a question like that again.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: What I confirmed today is that the long-term plan which was requested by the outgoing Health and Disability Commissioner for mental health, as well as called for by the interim Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, is now under consultation. That is a good long-term plan, and it will give great confidence to the sector and to all New Zealanders.

Question No. 12—Customs

12. to the Minister of Customs: What is the New Zealand Customs Service doing to prevent illicit drugs reaching our shores?

In Budget 2018, the Government provided an extra $58.1 million to Customs over four years. Thanks to this additional funding—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! It appears members are overstimulated over there.

💬 Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Thanks to this extra funding, this additional funding, Customs now has around 100 additional staff and capabilities to protect Aotearoa across borders. The success of this additional resourcing is evident in the increasing volumes of drugs that are intercepted offshore by Customs’ partners. I am proud to inform the House that from 2018 to 2021, Customs’ offshore seizures averted over $1.5 billion worth of social harm from arriving into New Zealand. These were drug shipments destined for New Zealand that were stopped at overseas ports. Had those drugs reached our streets, it is hard to imagine the damage that they would have wreaked. For the first five months of 2021, social harm averted from offshore seizures stands at close to $423 million. It is clear that the border disruptions from COVID-19 have not stopped criminals from wanting to push drugs to and through New Zealand. This goes to show that the work of Customs remains as important as ever to protect our community and the integrity of the New Zealand supply chains.

💬 Ginny Andersen: What does Customs actually do when illicit drugs arrive in New Zealand?

💬 Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Tackling criminal networks at the point of export is very important, but that doesn’t replace the need to still pursue drugs that do arrive—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume her seat. Look, some of us actually have an interest in the answer to this question. Some members might know it all, but some of us know that we might learn something, and I’d like to at least help members get a chance.

💬 Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Tackling criminal networks at the point of export is very important, but that doesn’t replace the need to still pursue drugs that do arrive into New Zealand. I am proud to inform you that, in addition to the $423 million in harm prevented from reaching our shores, Customs’ own seizures at the New Zealand border have prevented another $527 million in harm from reaching our streets. Customs continues to work hard to target, identify, and prosecute those criminals responsible for bringing drugs into New Zealand—for example, one foreign national and a New Zealander were recently sentenced for their part in Customs’ largest-ever meth bust. This involved 469 kilograms of methamphetamine that was seized by Customs in 2019, concealed within a shipment of electronic motors from Thailand.

💬 Ginny Andersen: What recent initiatives has Customs implemented to contribute to this work?

💬 Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Earlier this month, I commissioned, in Auckland, Customs’ latest maritime vessel, Rapua II. Rapua II will be Auckland-based, and its main function will be in-close, inshore work, primarily patrolling the Hauraki Gulf but with the ability to deploy to other areas as needed. Rapua II will be invaluable in fighting against drug trafficking, detecting border security breaches, and supporting the prevention of criminal activity in the Auckland region. I’m also proud to say that earlier this year, Customs launched its Border Protect outreach campaign, which encourages members of the public and industry to report activities that may be suspicious. Our border is not just at airports; it includes seaports, coastlines, and international freight arrival points. The integrity of our supply chain is critical. Cross-border crime can occur in any of these places, and the signs can be visible within communities or the workplace. The Border Protect number is 0800 WE PROTECT.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Minister aware that Customs is also responsible for holding up legal medicinal cannabis from getting to sick New Zealanders, like seven-year-old Eddy, son of Katy Thomas?

💬 Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: I don’t have that answer with me, but I’m happy to provide that to that member if she puts it to my office in writing.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Mr Speaker, permission to table evidence to that effect—seeking leave.

💬 SPEAKER: No, no, the member needs to tell us specifically what she wants to table.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Tabling a letter to that Minister’s office with regard to expediting the release from Customs and Medsafe for the medicinal cannabis for Eddy, son of Katy Thomas.

💬 SPEAKER: The member wants to table a letter from?

Chlöe Swarbrick: From Chlöe Swarbrick, MP.

💬 SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat. The member knows she can’t table material that she has herself produced.

Chlöe Swarbrick: To the Minister, however, Mr Speaker, pertaining to the point that the Minister noted, in evidence and awareness—

💬 SPEAKER: I understand that. If the member wants to give it to the Minister she can, but I’m not going to put it to the House. We’ve had repeated rulings from my predecessors about self-produced material not being a subject of tabling.