Oral Questions

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. In particular, I stand by this Government’s ability to deliver for New Zealanders and continue our strong economic recovery. Today, we have increased main benefits by an initial $20 per week per person, providing more support for 355,000 New Zealanders; we’ve reinstated the training incentive allowance, which was cut by the previous National Government; we have today launched the Ministry for Ethnic Communities; we have increased paid parental leave to a maximum of $621.76 per week; we have extended the unsupported child’s benefit and orphans benefit for short-term caregivers; and launched our new rebates for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. This is just some of a long list of initiatives that the Government is delivering on.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Do the current child poverty results reflect the fact that a key policy tool is benefit increases that are being cancelled out by the soaring cost of living?

No.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Why is one of her new three-year child poverty reduction targets exactly the same target she previously set, and is pushing it out by three years an admission of failure of one of her primary targets?

In answer to the second part of the question, no. We are on track to meet the 10-year targets. The initial three-year targets that were set were ambitious. We have now made further three-year targets, but we are on track for the 10-year targets.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: How has the $100 a week increase in rents since she became Prime Minister affected the likelihood this year of her achieving all of the first set of child poverty targets?

On behalf of the Prime Minister: what I do know is that on all nine indicators around child poverty, we have seen good progress under this Government. The Government has never denied that there is more to do, but the significant investments we’ve made in lifting the income of the lowest-income New Zealanders is making a significant difference in lifting children out of poverty.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Why are there 1,500 more children living in poverty on the Government’s primary measure A, compared to when she took office in 2017?

The member is wrong, as he said in his press release yesterday. He was wrong then, as well. If he takes the measure from the correct date, where we are measuring on what this Government is responsible for, he will, in fact, see 25,000 fewer children in poverty.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: When does she plan to achieve the target of lifting 100,000 children out of poverty, given from when they’ve came into Government, there are 1,500 more children living in poverty on one measure?

The member, as I said in my last supplementary answer, is wrong on that matter.

Question No. 2—Finance

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

The Government’s ongoing support to secure the economic recovery is being reflected in the Crown’s financial accounts. The Crown accounts for the 11 months to the end of May 2021 were released today, and they show that the operating balance before gains and losses, the OBEGAL, was a deficit of $3.6 billion. That is $5.8 billion better than was forecast by Treasury in Budget 2021. Net core Crown debt stood at 31.2 percent of GDP, $6 billion less than forecast. While the Government’s books are in better shape than expected, we cannot afford to be complacent. We are still facing elevated levels of debt and OBEGAL deficit for some years to come as a result of the response that was needed to the pandemic.

💬 Arena Williams: What is the impact on the economy of the country’s tax take?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: New Zealanders’ confidence in the recovery has been confirmed via an increase in tax revenue. Tax revenue was $89 billion in the 11 months to the end of May 2021, $4.1 billion above forecast. The improvement was across the board, with corporate tax being 13.7 percent higher than expected, source deductions revenue up 2 percent on forecast, and GST up 2.5 percent. Treasury notes that the positive variances reflect economic conditions being better than forecast. In simple terms, businesses are benefiting from New Zealanders buying their goods and services, which allow them to employ people, which in turn boosts spending in the economy. Nevertheless, the outlook does remain uncertain. The recent case of the Australian traveller in Wellington with COVID-19 and Australia’s growing outbreak, which has prompted the alert level rises, are signs that a resurgence in COVID cases around the world can make the economic environment more volatile, and we need to be cautious in response to that.

💬 Arena Williams: What constraints are there on the economy during the pandemic?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The economy’s performance has exceeded the expectations of most, but the recovery does remain uneven for some sectors and regions in New Zealand. There are supply chain issues, which, while mainly global in nature, are affecting the economy. The balanced approach that we took in Budget 2021 is appropriate as we work through the uncertainty. We will continue to keep a lid on debt while targeting support where it is needed most to accelerate our recovery and tackle those longstanding issues around climate change, housing, and child wellbeing.

Question No. 3—Transport

3. to the Minister of Transport: What estimates, if any, has he been provided by officials on the cost of cutting greenhouse gas emissions through the clean car package?

I thank the member for his excellent and timely question. The Clean Car Discount scheme alone is expected to prevent up to 9.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. The expected marginal abatement costs for the Clean Car Discount and Clean Car Standard combined is estimated at minus $160 to minus $200 per tonne of carbon emissions prevented. The estimates are negative, meaning that they represent a net benefit to the New Zealand economy, due to large fuel savings for New Zealanders. In short, the policy will reduce emissions, clean up air quality, save Kiwis money, and reduce our reliance on volatile international fuel supply chains. No doubt the ACT Party opposes it.

💬 Simon Court: What additional carbon emissions will be reduced by the clean car package, that would not otherwise have been captured under the emissions trading scheme cap?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: When the emissions trading scheme was established by a previous Labour Government, it was never envisaged that there would never be any specific measures to support New Zealanders to reduce their emissions. I do note that the analysis that has been provided shows that if we relied solely on the price of carbon to achieve the same kind of electric vehicle level uptakes as we will achieve through the Clean Car Discounts, then we would need to increase the price of carbon to approximately $575 per tonne, meaning an extra $1.30 per litre on petrol prices. If the member wants to campaign on that policy, then he is very welcome to do so.

💬 Simon Court: The Minister has quoted a now debunked Ministry of Transport report—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will ask a question and will not make an assertion. I’ll let him start again, but this is the last time I’m going to let him do that.

💬 Simon Court: So where does the Minister get his figures on the negative cost of carbon from?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: From the regulatory impact statement.

💬 Simon Court: So how does that compare with the cost of reducing carbon emissions through the emissions trading scheme?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well, as I just outlined in my previous answer, if we relied solely on the emissions trading scheme and the price of carbon to achieve the same uptake of electric vehicles, we would have to price carbon at approximately $575 per tonne, compared to the current level of approximately $40 per tonne. That would be an extra $1.30 per litre on the price of petrol—that is not this Government’s policy.

Question No. 4—Local Government

My question is to the Minister of Local Government. What specific advice has she seen about the benefits of the Three Waters reform approach for cities—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m going to ask the member to ask the question as it is written on—and I’m just double-checking—the yellow sheet.

4. to the Minister of Local Government: My apologies—my apologies. What advice has she seen about the benefits of the Three Waters programme approach for cities such as Whangārei and Auckland?

I’ve seen hundreds of pages of detailed modelling and research that shows that all communities in New Zealand, including Auckland and Whangārei, will be better off under the Three Waters reform proposals. It’s surprising to hear local mayors not supporting the reforms, given that yesterday I released council-specific information that showed that average household costs per annum in 2051 in Auckland of $1,910 would be reduced to $800. Then, in Whangārei, they would be reduced from $4,060 to $800. [Interruption] But that’s not all—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! No. The member is a bit lucky. As I’ve indicated yesterday, I have received a lot of complaints recently about noise from the Opposition drowning out Ministers making replies. That was another case of that, and it will stop. Interjections are meant to be rare and reasonable. Those interjections weren’t. Now, I’ll say to Mr Goldsmith he came very close then.

💬 Matt Doocey: Point of order. Yesterday, the Opposition sat through the Prime Minister chipping our questioners while they were asking their primary questions. Can I ask for some balance?

💬 SPEAKER: I might balance it by applying the rules, but I won’t at the moment, because I’d prefer the member stayed in the House.

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Just to recap, in Whangārei, average household costs per annum would be reduced from $4,060 to $800. But that’s not all. In Auckland, they will also receive better-quality services and address the major water services issues that have been outlined in my most recent correspondence to Mayor Goff.

💬 Dr Emily Henderson: Is cross-subsidisation a valid concern, and what benefits would accrue for an entity that included the Far North, Whangārei, and Kaipara district councils with Auckland Council?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The extensive modelling and research which we published yesterday shows that Aucklanders will be better off under the reforms, even after joining up with Northland communities. I’ve heard calls from Mayor Goff, and it’s surprising to hear them, given the number of times the Government and the rest of New Zealand has stepped in to support Auckland’s shortfalls on infrastructure investment in the past. The real issue for Auckland is their constrained balance sheets and operational inefficiencies when compared to water entities of the same scale. As a Government, we simply want Aucklanders to save money, have access to safe water, and be able to go to their beaches and swim safely. Aucklanders want all of this. I would have thought that Mayor Goff would have wanted it too.

💬 Dr Emily Henderson: Is she concerned that councils such as Whangārei and Auckland have signalled that they are not supporting the proposed Three Waters reform?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I’ve released significant information yesterday on the specific benefits to Whangārei and Auckland and all other New Zealand communities for their ratepayers and water users through the reforms. I urge those councils to take the time to digest their information and share it with their residents, ratepayers, and householders. We need to continue to work together on this reform programme to ensure the delivery of these vital infrastructure services have the very best chance of success. Even though the benefits of reform to its residents are very clear, I do acknowledge that Whangārei is one of the very few councils in this country with very little debt. We’re working with Local Government New Zealand to address this specific situation and to put together an approach to support councils on these reforms.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Supplementary.

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Point of—

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, a point of order?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I’m happy to take the question.

💬 SPEAKER: The member has to sit down if she’s going to take a question.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Will she rule out forcing and mandating councils to participate in the Three Waters reforms?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: As I said previously, I’ve encouraged councils to ensure they have the full suite of information and research and modelling to be able to make a decision so they can see the benefits of reform and understand them, and then explain those benefits back to ratepayers. I’m sure all councils will want to be in that position prior to pre-determining an outcome that might ultimately negatively impact ratepayers. Point of order. I seek leave to table a letter and associated information related to Auckland and Whangārei. The letter is to Mayor Goff—my most recent one.

💬 SPEAKER: One of your letters—a letter that you’ve sent?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes.

💬 SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that letter being tabled? There appears to be none.

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

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order. I just want to query you on your statement that you just made in the middle of that question around significant feedback from members of the public around the behaviour of the Opposition during question time. You said that you’d made that point yesterday. I’ve looked back at what you actually said yesterday, sir, and you made a very general remark in which you said that you’d received “significantly more public reaction to misbehaviour in the House than I’ve had for some time.”, which at least implied—or at least explicitly said—all of the House was to blame. And you now seem to be saying, sir, that, basically, it’s the National Party’s—the Opposition’s—fault. I put it to you, sir, that when there is disorder in the House, or misbehaviour, it occurs not just from the National Party Opposition but from Labour members frequently using supplementary questions to take political flicks at the Opposition, which, of course, will produce elements of disorder, and, frequently, as has been pointed out by the chief whip for National, using the opportunity of the asking of supplementary questions to take flicks at the Opposition.

💬 SPEAKER: OK, well, this is fairly easy to deal with. The first thing is if the member doesn’t like replies from the Government where they feel that supplementaries are being used inappropriately, then the member should bring it up at the time, not days later, or the following week.

💬 Chris Bishop: It was a minute later.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Does the member want to stay? The other point that I’ll make is that yesterday, I was more generous than I was today as to the source or the reason for the complaints that I had been receiving. In fact, if I had to identify one person for being the source of the loud noise which was the subject of complaint, he’s not currently here, but it was the former member for Hamilton East. [Interruption] Mr Bennett.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Mr Speaker, your final comment was out of order. We are rebuked often for referring to the absence of a member from the House, which is exactly what you just did.

💬 SPEAKER: I apologise. I was looking for the member—I shouldn’t have referred to his absence. I don’t like criticising members in their absence, but, as far as that particular member is concerned, his repeated inane interjections are the subject of correspondence to me.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order. We’re going to get ourselves into a difficult situation here, Mr Speaker. Is it now the case that if you agree with the correspondence into your office from members of the public—and, by the way, we have no way of verifying the veracity of that correspondence—you will—

💬 SPEAKER: All right, the member will just take a seat. That’s the end of that, thank you.

Question No. 5—Transport

5. to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions?

💬 SPEAKER: No, I’m sorry, I’m not prepared to do that. I’m now going to go back and Chris Bishop will withdraw and apologise for his reflection on the Chair.

💬 Chris Bishop: I withdraw and apologise.

Shall I repeat my question, Mr Speaker?

💬 SPEAKER: No—Michael Wood.

Yes, particularly when I said earlier that the Clean Car Discount scheme alone is expected to prevent up to 9.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions up to 2050. As I’ve covered in the House today, the marginal abatement cost of that is minus $160 to minus $200 per year, representing a net economic saving to New Zealand which breaks down at the individual level to savings of approximately $7,000 over the lifetime of a clean vehicle that this policy helps Kiwis get into.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: What does he consider to be worse use of taxpayer money: the $125 per passenger trip subsidy for a train from Hamilton to Papakura or the $2,200 subsidy per EV—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Sorry, it’s mainly Mr Mitchell now, I think. Can the member start his question again?

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Gladly. Which does he consider is the worse use of taxpayer money: the $125 per passenger trip subsidy for a train from Hamilton to Papakura or the $2,200 subsidy per EV being sent to Japanese exporters?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I fundamentally reject the calculations in the member’s question. As I’ve just outlined, the net economic value of the Clean Car Discount scheme is a positive one to New Zealand, not a negative one.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he agree with vehicle importers association CEO David Vinsen that the clean car scheme is “virtue signalling on a grand scale and at huge costs”?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No, but I do agree with the comments of David Crawford from the Motor Industry Association, who says that he’s delighted by the announcement, and the comments of the New Zealand Automobile Association, who say that it’s a very well-balanced policy.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: When he announced another six-month consultation on light rail just three months ago, was it his understanding that half of those six months would be spent doing nothing but designing a website and a map?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Again, I reject the assertions in the member’s question. In the space of approximately two months, the light rail establishment unit has now got under way with producing an indicative business case, which will inform Cabinet decision-making later in the year, and, as of today, has launched a major public consultation with the people of Auckland about how we finally take action to unclog Auckland’s roads—something that has been ignored for far too long.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does his need to seek social licence after four years of delay on light rail extend to the $785 million cycle bridge, and if so, when can we expect to see a website with a map for that project?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: There will, of course, on any significant transport project, be engagement and consultation with the public, but I would urge the member, as he engages with these projects, to stop the sniping and actually to get on with the job that we all have ahead of us, which is to work out how we actually decarbonise New Zealand’s transport system—something that that member says in principle that he supports but opposes every single measure that will actually deliver it.

Question No. 6—Foreign Affairs

6. to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What policies for regulating seabed mining in the Pacific, if any, is New Zealand promoting in its engagement with the International Seabed Authority?

New Zealand is actively engaged as a member of the International Seabed Authority—ISA—in the development of a regulatory framework to govern seabed mining. The member may be aware that New Zealand is one of the few countries to have a robust regulatory framework to govern seabed mining within our national jurisdiction, and we’re drawing on our experience as we contribute to the development of the international mining code. In the Pacific, attitudes towards deep-sea mining are mixed. New Zealand does not take a position for or against mining on the seabed within the jurisdiction of Pacific Island countries. We respect the mana and sovereignty of these Governments. However, we continue to engage with ISA and call for robust legal frameworks, effective governance structures, and high standards of environmental protection. We need to work together with all our partners to advocate for a regulatory framework that provides for a high level of environmental protection. Over recent years, New Zealand has made several submissions to ISA to this effect and will be submitting a further contribution this week.

💬 Teanau Tuiono: What is the Government’s view on Nauru triggering a rule at the International Seabed Authority which will allow seabed mining in Pacific waters by 2023?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Nauru’s decision to trigger the two-year rule at a time when the International Seabed Authority cannot meet in person as a result of COVID has been expressed by New Zealand as unwelcome and presents a challenge because of the COVID circumstance. New Zealand will, however, continue to engage within the ISA and will redouble our efforts to ensure seabed mining does not occur unless high standards of environmental protection are met. To this end, we’ll work closely with Nauru, other partners in the ISA area, and those sponsoring mining activities. A rushed process during the pandemic risks an inadequate mining code that does not appropriately protect the environment. This would undermine the reputation of the ISA and galvanise opposition to deep-sea mining. In-person meetings will be important to finalise the mining code.

💬 Teanau Tuiono: In the preparation of New Zealand’s latest submission to the International Seabed Authority on Saturday, has the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade consulted with representatives of the Pacific Blue Line, a coalition of organisations seeking a ban on deep-sea mining; if not, why not?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Thank you for this particular question, as I sought advice on the very issue of engagement, understanding that it would be important from a New Zealand perspective. New Zealand’s developed its contributions within the ISA through consultations with a range of relevant Government agencies and stakeholders. Public stakeholders, including Māori stakeholders with a known interest in oceans issues, have been invited to provide comment on draft elements of the mining code to inform New Zealand’s submissions. In particular, comments have been received from a number of stakeholders, including Greenpeace and the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition. Ministry officials have met with representatives of both organisations to discuss this issue and make it a part of our submission.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: What specific environmental protections is the New Zealand Government seeking in the International Seabed Authority’s framework to regulate deep-sea mining?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: We’re committed to ensuring that the ISA adopts a robust mining code that provides for a high standard of environmental protection in all deep-sea mining, including the application of the precautionary approach. This is consistent with the requirements of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which requires the International Seabed Authority to develop a regulatory framework that ensures the effective protection of the marine environment from harmful effects that may arise from deep-sea mining.

💬 Teanau Tuiono: Will the Minister support international calls for a moratorium on deep-sea mining?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: We’re acutely aware of the environmental risks associated with deep-sea mining. As a member of ISA, New Zealand is working to ensure that deep-sea mining cannot take place unless high standards of environmental protection can be met. With regards to our advocacy within the ISA, New Zealand has continually engaged on the development of its draft regulatory framework for the exploitation of seabed minerals in the area, including submissions in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. We will submit a further contribution this week. We urge any country considering deep-sea mining to ensure it is only done subject to robust legal frameworks, effective governance structures, and high standards of environmental protection. We do this mindful that New Zealand’s own regulatory framework allows for deep-sea mining under certain conditions and subject to robust regulatory control.

Question No. 7—Workplace Relations and Safety

7. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What workplace relations and safety policies come into effect from 1 July?

Our Government is delivering on a range of commitments to support working New Zealanders from 1 July. We recognise that we needed to support security guards given that they are on the front lines in keeping our managed isolation facilities secure and doing other important work around our country. That’s why I’m pleased to confirm that as of today security guards have been added to Schedule 1 of the Employment Relations Act, helping to protect their employment conditions.

💬 Marja Lubeck: What effect will this have on the industry?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: With these new protections, the 7,800 security guards nationwide will be able to keep their jobs and retain their pay rates and conditions when a business is sold or restructured. This will help stop the race to the bottom, where companies are undercutting each other, and lead to an industry that competes on service quality, which helps the companies already offering good conditions.

💬 Marja Lubeck: What other changes have started today?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Today also marks one year of paid parental leave being boosted to 26 weeks, so it’s a good time that the maximum rate for eligible employees and self-employed people will increase to $621.76 this week from $606.46 per week in the previous year. We’re also delivering on our commitment to support the welfare of seafarers by putting seafarer welfare centres on to a sustainable funding footing. These changes show that the Government is committed to decent and dignified work for everyone in New Zealand.

Question No. 8—Justice

8. to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all of his statements and policies on his proposed hate speech law changes?

on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Yes, because this is a very important issue. It’s been raised for a number of years, and now most recently by the royal commission of inquiry report on the terrorist attack on the Christchurch mosques and also because, in previous national debates on this issue, that member himself said that we needed to have this conversation. And so we look forward to a constructive and mature debate nationwide.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Well, in light of that answer, that’s been raised for a number of years; the Government’s progressing these hate speech changes because it’s actually just something they want to do, not because of anything in the royal commission report.

On behalf of the Minister, no, the royal commission, having inquired into the background events to the terrorist attack on the Christchurch mosques, having spoken to many, many communities, minority ethnic communities and minority faith communities, and heard their experiences and reflected on those experiences, and the sorts of expressions that members of those communities come up against every day in the community and in the nation’s schoolyards, made a recommendation that it was time to revisit the existing law on hate speech—section 131 of the Human Rights Act—to update it and align it not only with our international obligations but also with like-minded countries.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Given his statements to the House yesterday that “The proposals in the discussion document maintain the thresholds for incitement of hate speech as they currently stand and look to narrow the definition of hatred”, why did he say in the introduction of that document itself that he is proposing changes to hate speech law that “strengthen Human Rights Act protections”?

On behalf of the Minister, anything that makes the law clearer and more accessible to citizens of this country and those called upon to enforce it is strengthening the law.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is the Government trying to maintain, as he said in this question time, actually, in answer to the first primary, or strengthen, as he’s just said, hate speech protections in New Zealand?

On behalf of the Minister, as I said in my previous answer, making the law clearer and making it more accessible to people is strengthening the law. If what he’s asking is in relation to maintaining the law, maintaining current thresholds and the safeguards and protections that are in the existing law, those will continue. Those safeguards include that there can be no prosecution for hate speech unless it is approved by the Attorney-General.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: In light of his view just now that he is, effectively, strengthening the law, how many more police prosecutions and convictions does he estimate, and will the Government be resourcing up the police accordingly?

On behalf of the Minister, making the law clearer and more accessible does not necessitate an increase in charges or prosecutions of that particular law. It is about sending a very clear signal, as the royal commission recommended from its extensive engagement with minority, ethnic, and faith communities, that we need to do something better than we have at the moment.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: So is he now saying he’s just making it clearer and not strengthening it?

On behalf of the Minister, no the member clearly hasn’t listened to my earlier answers. Making the law clearer and more accessible is strengthening the law. It doesn’t change the threshold, the prosecutorial thresholds, or the thresholds that judges will apply in relation to a prosecution.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Isn’t the reality that he is clearly proposing to lower the legal threshold and broaden the law of hate speech by, for example, adding in words like “maintaining and normalising”?

On behalf of the Minister, no. The member is completely wrong, and the royal commission, in its analysis of its proposal was very clear: it did not accept that words like “incite”, for example, meant a great deal in modern vernacular. It looked to comparable jurisdictions, like the United Kingdom, and found that language that is more consistent with people’s everyday use, like “maintaining hatred against others”, bearing in mind that any prosecution would have to be on the basis that that is an intended action, and would have the further safeguard of the Attorney-General having to approve any such prosecution. The law and the thresholds that it has to meet would not change.

Question No. 9—Health

9. to the Associate Minister of Health: What announcements has she made about community maternity services?

Yesterday, I announced changes to the way community midwives are paid to better reflect the challenges they face providing care and support to mothers and whānau. Community midwives are paid through what is known as a primary maternity services notice. The previous notice was introduced in 2007. It was out of date, and provided no compensation for the additional time and travel required of some maternity care providers. This created an unsustainable business model for maternity in rural and highly deprived communities, and barriers to access. The new notice is more flexible and will provide greater funding to midwives working in more remote parts of New Zealand and when they are supporting mothers and whānau with complex clinical or social needs.

💬 Sarah Pallett: How will the new notice better support community midwives and the communities they serve?

💬 Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Midwives do an incredibly important job and they deserve to be backed up by a strong maternity system that makes it easier for them to do their job. The 2021 notice introduces rural practice, travel, and additional care payments to more equitably fund travel in provision of maternity care. This will help improve the sustainability of community-based primary maternity services, and it has been welcomed by the College of Midwives.

💬 Sarah Pallett: What else is being done to strengthen maternity services?

💬 Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Budget 2020 included the largest ever funding boost for primary maternity services. The Government invested $242 million over four years so maternity service providers, mothers, and their babies can receive more support. In the last year, we’ve expanded the maternity quality and safety programme in every DHB, we have updated national maternity clinical guidance and invested in information technology system improvements, and we have put $6 million into Te Ara ō Hine, an initiative designed to help attract and retain more Māori and Pasifika midwives into the profession by better supporting students in their studies. There is more work to do to strengthen our maternity services, but we are laying the foundations of a better future.

Question No. 10—Children

10. to the Minister for Children: Does he agree with all Oranga Tamariki’s statements and actions?

No. I especially do not stand by the actions of staff members who were shown to have used unacceptable behaviour when restraining children in one of our care and protection residences. But I’m not the only one that does not stand by those actions. This morning, the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki, Sir Wira Gardiner, announced his intention to close the residence Te Oranga until the investigations are completed. I stand by his action because it was made in the best interests of the children in our care.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he agree with the statement of his chief executive that all Oranga Tamariki staff in care and protection residences were trained in the correct management of actual pain or potential aggression—or Management of Actual or Potential Aggression (MAPA)—hold technique?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes, they were trained in those techniques, but whether they applied them in the appropriate way is another question.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is the percentage of front-line staff at Oranga Tamariki who have completed the full MAPA training programme?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I would expect that anybody who works in the child care and protection residences would complete that training.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. I would ask that the Minister table the evidence to back up that the staff have been trained.

💬 SPEAKER: The member can—no, she can’t, actually. If the Minister had a document and quoted from it, she could certainly ask for it to be tabled—in fact, require it to be tabled. I think when a Minister states his expectations, it is very hard to table what leads to that.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What percentage of workers in youth care and protection residences are trained and qualified social workers as opposed to other support staff such as youth workers?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I think what’s important is that we have in these residences the right people with the right skills dealing with the children. Whether they’re social workers or youth workers is irrelevant if they have the best interests of the children at heart.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: I’m not sure—to the Speaker—whether we got the answer. What percentage of workers in youth care and support?

💬 SPEAKER: Sure, and because the member is still one of the relatively new team, there’s a Speaker’s ruling somewhere—around 183, I think—which indicates that if the member wants a specific answer, then she’s got to ask a specific question. You can’t just ask a general question and expect the Minister to have a whole pile of details, even if it is related.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Thank you. When was the Oranga Tamariki Child Protection Protocol last reviewed and updated?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I expect Oranga Tamariki to regularly update all of their protocols. But there’s one thing to have protocols; it’s another thing to actually apply them, and this is what has obviously failed. I’m not standing here making any excuses for the failings of Oranga Tamariki. What has gone on is totally unacceptable, and that’s why myself and the chief executive, Sir Wira Gardiner, are standing up and putting the children’s best interests at heart. When we saw the video the other day, within 24 hours the staff were stood down. Within 48 hours, that residence was closed. That’s decisive action.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: I just would like to go on record that the question was: when was the Oranga Tamariki child protocol last reviewed?

💬 SPEAKER: And it certainly was addressed. I am going to warn the member that having a running commentary about her dissatisfaction with answers is disorderly, and if she does it deliberately, it’s highly disorderly. I’m going to be generous and take this as a learning moment.

Question No. 11—Housing

11. to the Minister of Housing: How, on a scale of 1 to 10, does she rate the Government’s delivery of its housing policies and commitments?

The member will need to be more specific. On her scale, is 10 the best? As in, this Government has delivered 10 times more affordable houses through its programmes than the previous National Government delivered through the special housing areas. Or does she mean that one is the best ranking? As in, our Government ranks No. 1 in the number of building consents ever seen in New Zealand, which contrasts with the record of the previous Government, when annual consents almost halved after the global financial crisis. But then there are other numbers that are way off the 1 to 10 chart, like the 7,863 public housing places delivered since we became Government—the most in a generation. Or is it the number of apprentices in the building and construction sector: 22,760 in May 2021, compared with 12,560 in May 2017? But we don’t claim perfection. We know that there is way more work to do after nine years of inaction under the previous Government, but we have an extensive work programme under way. There is no quick fix; what is needed is a Government committed—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! I think the member has addressed the question.

💬 Nicola Willis: How many of the 16,000 new KiwiBuild homes promised for delivery in the first three years of the programme have been built since the official count began on 1 July 2018?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The member knows well that the KiwiBuild programme was reset in 2019, when I became the Minister. But I can tell that member that it is 10 times the number of houses for affordable homeownership delivered in the three and a half years that we have been in Government than the previous National Government delivered over nine years in Government.

💬 Nicola Willis: By what date does she anticipate the Government delivering the 1,000 KiwiBuild homes it promised to build in the first year of the policy?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think the member needs to look at her questions. That is a reset programme; it does not have that target. But I will invite the member to have a look at the dashboard that is publicly available on the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development site that we have built a thousand KiwiBuild houses; they have been sold. This is 10 times the number of homes for affordable homeownership than the previous Government managed over nine years.

💬 Nicola Willis: Can she confirm that the Government’s biggest current KiwiBuild project of 176 homes at Ormiston Rise has gone into receivership, and by what date will those homes be completed?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The member has previously asked questions about that, and we’ve already had this discussion on the floor of this House. So the answer is: yes, the 173 homes—I think, off the top of my head—will be delayed, that that project is being worked through, and everybody is hopeful that those homes will still be delivered.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does she think that Government housing policies are delivering, when there are four times as many at-risk people on the State house waiting list as there were when the Government came to office?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: At the risk of repeating the answer from the primary question, which I’m sure would test the Chair’s patience late on a Thursday afternoon, I do believe this is a Government delivering, because this is a Government that is finally building some public houses. The previous National Government not only did not build houses but it flogged them off, so after nine years in Government we ended up with 1,500 fewer public houses than they started with. That party should hang its head in shame.

💬 Nicola Willis: Will she apologise to New Zealanders for the Government’s complete failure to deliver on its commitment to build 16,000 KiwiBuild houses by today, and, if not, why not?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think what that member has to realise is that sometimes in politics—and, I think, members of her party should probably take note of this—one of the difficult things to do when you get something wrong is to admit it. That is what we did with KiwiBuild: we reset it, and we have been delivering. What I will continually apologise to New Zealanders for is the fact that we had a National Government who for nine years delivered nothing in public housing.

Question No. 12—Diversity, Inclusion, and Ethnic Communities

12. to the Minister for Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities: What recent announcements has she made about improving outcomes for ethnic communities in New Zealand?

This morning, I launched the new Ministry for Ethnic Communities—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! We’re not seals in here.

💬 Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: We have over 213 ethnicities represented across Aotearoa. We collectively speak over 160 languages. Our ethnic communities make up nearly 20 percent of New Zealand’s population. This is the first time that they will have this level of representation in the public sector. It’s the first time that we will have a chief executive whose sole focus is lifting the wellbeing of our ethnic communities and who will have a seat at the top table. The ministry’s been a long-held ambition of our ethnic communities, and I’m proud to be part of a Government that has heard that call and responded to it.

💬 Vanushi Walters: What are the key priorities for the new Ministry for Ethnic Communities?

💬 Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I was determined that the direction and the strategy of the new Ministry for Ethnic Communities would be shaped by the priorities of the communities it serves, and so we engaged with members of our diverse ethnic communities across Aotearoa to find out what was most important to them. That has then shaped the priorities of the new ministry. As agreed by Cabinet they are: to take action to promote the value of diversity and improve inclusion; to ensure equitable provision of, and access to, Government services for ethnic communities; to develop and support initiatives to improve economic outcomes for ethnic communities, including addressing barriers to employment; and to work to connect and empower ethnic community groups.

💬 Vanushi Walters: What will the new ministry mean for our ethnic communities?

💬 Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Our Government wants to ensure that New Zealand is a place where everyone can be and feel safe, valued, and heard, have a sense of belonging, and be able to participate fully. We know that there are opportunities but that some groups apparently are unable to access them. We’ve heard from our communities what those barriers are and where the opportunities lie. With the chief executive at the top table, the new ministry is well placed to make tangible changes through its own programme of work and influence decision making across Government to ensure better outcomes for our diverse ethnic communities. We know that there’s more work to be done, and collectively we can make Aotearoa a fairer, safer, and more cohesive society.

💬 Melissa Lee: How will the ministry defer to the Office of Ethnic Communities currently operating, considering it will still be a—and I quote the Minister—“departmental agency of the DIA”, as she said yesterday at select committee, as it is currently now?

💬 Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: As I mentioned in my responses to the previous questions, the main difference here is, firstly, that our Government in the last term invested in strengthening the Office of Ethnic Communities, including its community engagement function, and increased its funding that goes to grass-roots community organisations eightfold. This is the next step in the journey of creating a ministry, something that our communities have asked for for more than a decade. For the first time, we will have a chief executive, who will sit at the top table and be able to influence change. That is a significant difference, and while members across the House might sneer, our communities hold this very strongly. In terms of it being a departmental agency hosted by the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA), the only thing that this new ministry will share with the DIA is the back end corporate functions, like procurement, like HR policy, like finance policy. I strongly believe that being able to share those functions and not reinvent the wheel, and actually focus the time, energy, and resources on our communities, will be beneficial.

Questions to Members

Question No. 1—Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill

1. CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi) to the Member in charge of the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill: What reports or reaction has she received recently in relation to the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have received feedback that it is callous and cruel for Labour to delay this bill when the current verdict is—

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

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, are you going to let me rule first? Parliament took a decision yesterday, and the member has to make it absolutely clear—I’m making it absolutely clear to the member that she does not have responsibility for Parliament’s decision. She can only answer on questions for which she is responsible.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. The question was: what feedback had she received? If the feedback that the member has received includes criticism of a particular party for their perception of a block, then how is that out of order? We’ve had plenty of references to political parties in question time today.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, sure—sure. As was referred to, I think, earlier today or possibly yesterday in question time, having patsy questions which invite people in charge of bills to slag the Opposition is out of order.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: A point of order—I hope the member’s not going to reflect on the ruling I’ve just made.

💬 Chris Bishop: Well, no.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, he better not be.

💬 Chris Bishop: Well, no, it’s a fresh point of order. Is the position now that you can receive feedback from members of the public and reflect on members of our side of the House who aren’t even here and call them “inane”—to quote you earlier—but members are not allowed to answer questions about feedback they’ve had in relation to other political parties?

💬 SPEAKER: Right, right, I suggest one of the early things that the member should do is get a hearing or comprehension test as to my comments, and then he might want to come back.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order. Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: No, I’m not going to continue with this. Does Chris Penk want a supplementary or not?

💬 Chris Penk: What are the member’s hopes for the next steps for the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. That this bill will not be delayed further, because the current verdict is insensitive and deeply upsetting to the needs and feelings of those who have lost a loved one, adding further pain to people who are already significantly traumatised. Thanks, Labour.