Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that more than 100,000 hospital procedures have been deferred in the current outbreak, and how many of these were on the Faster Cancer Treatment pathway?

No. The member is not correct when he refers to 100,000 deferred procedures. It is correct, however, that 100,000 hospital events have been deferred during the current COVID-19 outbreak, which is not the same as procedures. The 100,000 events include diagnostic tests, outpatient appointments, first specialist assessments and follow-ups, as well as in-patient surgery and minor surgical procedures. I can confirm that urgent and non-deferrable care has continued throughout the lockdown, with approximately 50 percent of normal volumes in the northern region and 85 to 95 percent for other regions. Decisions to defer procedures continue to be made on a clinical basis by clinicians, with the patient’s medical needs and medical history in mind, in making these clinical judgments in the broader context of a global pandemic and the need for patient and wider hospital safety. The reality is that, as I have said to the House before, pandemics cause disruptions to health services. The best way to address this, of course, as we know, is to continue our vaccination campaign.

Turning to the second part of the member’s question, because the data on this is reported on a six-monthly basis, and I don’t have raw figures, I can say to the member, in the six months to the end of September 2021, the 62-day target for the Faster Cancer Treatment pathway was, on a nationwide basis, achieved at a rate of 85 percent against the national target of 90 percent.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: What is his plan, then, to catch up on the more than 100,000 delayed events?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Some of those events will be caught up with, as required, through the ministry’s negotiated plans with DHBs, through phone consultations where that is possible, and through providing additional support to get those procedures happening. That is why last year the Government provided an additional $282.5 million to DHBs, over a three-year period, to catch up with deferred planned care. Ongoing effort is being made, particularly in the northern region, because of the ongoing delays as a result of this extended lockdown to make sure that as many of those procedures are carried out as quickly as possible.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Has he asked officials for an estimate of how long it will take to clear the whole hospital waiting list, and, if so, how long?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I get regular reports on the impact of the lockdown on planned care and the delays that that is causing, and I’m in constant discussion with officials about the steps that are being taken, including the effort right now being focused on the northern region because of the impact of the extended lockdown on what is required to get those deferred planned care events returned to schedule.

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: What would the impact on the health system have been if the Government had adopted the Opposition’s policy of opening the country at 80 percent—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise. He’s been here a long time. He knows that question is out of order.

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: And I’m going to say to the Hon Stuart Nash that was actually egregious; it wasn’t even a decent attempt.

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Well, I was going to take some further action and I won’t because of the noise from Matt Doocey.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Can he guarantee that every one of the more than 100,000 people, along with the 30,000 who were already on wait-list before the outbreak, will be treated before he disestablishes DHBs in eight months?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I can’t give any guarantee about when any particular thing will happen when it comes to catching up with the deferred planned care. There were waiting lists that were in place well before the whole pandemic even commenced. So that’s why we do everything we can to support both the ministry and the work it is doing with DHBs to catch up on that planned care, but no one will miss out on hospital care that they ought to expect to get, regardless of whether the DHBs are in existence or when Health NZ takes over.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: What was his response to the man with bladder cancer who recently contacted his office regarding his delayed treatment, and did that response include an apology for not building enough ICU beds over the last 18 months?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not familiar with that particular piece of communication, but I do know that when a Government is in place for nine years and spends barely $1 billion on capital upgrades and expansion and actually runs down the health system, I know that the Government that follows has a lot of work to do to catch up, and that’s what we’re doing.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: What advice has he received, if any, on the harm to health in the number of premature deaths expected from those 100,000 people, as a consequence of having their treatments delayed?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: One of the reasons why pandemics cause disruptions to health services, particularly at the height of an outbreak, such as we saw from 17 August, or 18 August, for a period where we were all in level 4 lockdown, is that it is simply unsafe for people to turn up to hospital—unsafe for them, unsafe for their staff—until the outbreak is under control. So there is deferral of planned care. That is in everybody’s best interests. The unexpected increase in mortality would be much greater if we’d just carried on as if nothing had happened, and a whole bunch of people turned up to hospital and both themselves and hospital staff got infected.

Question No. 2—Education

2. to the Minister of Education: What action is the Government taking to give school students in alert level 3 areas the opportunity to return to onsite learning?

Today, I’ve confirmed that Auckland and Waikato students in years 1 to 10 can return to face-to-face learning at schools and kura from 17 November. Students in years 9 and 10 will be able to return full-time, alongside those already back at high schools in years 11 to 13. Most students in years 1 to 8 will be returning part-time. Each school and kura will decide what works best for their learners and their community, consistent with the public health guidance that we have issued. That might be by alternating days or half-weeks through year levels or through whānau groupings. Full-time learning will continue onsite for students whose parents have needed it—for example, if they’ve been back at full-time work.

💬 Angela Roberts: What reassurance can he give to students and their families that it is safe to return to onsite learning?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Public health advice supports a return to onsite learning. It’s clear that the risk of reopening schools is outweighed by the benefits of kids re-engaging in their learning face to face. Measures to help minimise the risk of COVID-19 will include mask wearing from year 4 up in most cases, ventilating classrooms, limiting the number of students onsite, and making sure groups of children distance from each other, and, with really strong vaccination rates, the balance of risk has shifted. As vaccination rates continue to increase, including the requirement for teachers to have at least one COVID-19 vaccination by Monday, the risk to children and students continues to lower.

💬 Angela Roberts: Why is it important to bring younger students back onsite now?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I acknowledge that lockdowns can be stressful for children and young people, so returning to some onsite learning will mean that they can reconnect with their teachers and with their friends. Starting this month, that provides certainty ahead of the Christmas break and before the new school year starts. Parents, caregivers, and teachers have been doing an incredible job, helping children to adapt and to learn online, and I want to thank them for that and acknowledge those school leaders and teachers, who’ll be working hard from here to prepare for a different way of teaching and learning from 17 November.

💬 Teanau Tuiono: Is he confident that health protections proposed will be strong enough to prevent the spread of COVID-19 at schools?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In the new environment that we are moving into, it is impossible to completely prevent the spread of COVID-19. The public health measures that we’re putting in place in our schools and our kura are designed to minimise the risk of COVID-19 spreading, but I do want to be really, really clear that COVID-19 will spread throughout New Zealand over the coming months. People need to be prepared for that. The public health protections that we put in place are designed to minimise that.

💬 Teanau Tuiono: Will he instruct the Ministry of Education to roll out high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters to improve ventilation in schools so students and teachers can be as safe as possible?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It is important to recognise that most schools do not have artificial ventilation systems; they have windows and doors. They don’t have air conditioning, they don’t have ducted air ventilation, and it is through ducted air ventilation that HEPA filters are used. So, in most cases, the best way of ventilating those spaces is going to be to have the windows and doors open. Where it’s not possible to open the windows and doors or where ventilation opportunities are very poor, or where there are structural ventilation systems, we’ll work with schools on a case by case basis to identify what’s best for their needs.

Question No. 3—Finance

Thank you, Mr squeak—Mr Speaker.

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I withdraw and apologise.

3. to the Minister of Finance: Can New Zealand afford to pay for all of the Government’s policy promises; if so, how?

The strength and resilience of the New Zealand economy has put us in a strong position to deliver a policy programme that, in turn, supports sustainable economic growth, reduces child poverty, and sees strong investment in health, housing, and education, among other areas. In answer to the second part of the member’s question, the Government gets the money it spends through revenue from tax, levies, fees, investment income, and the sale of goods and services. The Government also funds its commitment by raising debt, by issuing bonds. This is standard practice for this and past New Zealand Governments and, indeed, for most Governments around the world. As we have demonstrated, we will continue to roll out our policy programme in a careful and balanced way to achieve our goals while managing resources in a sustainable way.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will he rule out raising taxes in order to pay for the extra spending promises made, and, if so, does that mean that the extra money will need to be borrowed?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government has made clear that we will not be raising taxes in this term. The way the Government will continue to make sure that we pay for the commitments we have will be a combination of all of the things I answered in my primary question.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does the Government remain committed to light rail in Auckland, the preferred option of which has an estimated cost of $14.6 billion, and, if so, how does he plan to pay for it?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the question, yes.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does the Government remain committed to rapid transport in Wellington, the cheapest option of which being $5.8 billion, and, if so, how does the Government plan to pay for it?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Can he confirm that since he has been finance Minister, New Zealand’s debt has increased over $40 billion—that’s public debt—but in just one week of announcements, he’s added another $35 billion worth of spending on to the debt pile he’s already incurred?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can confirm there’s been a global pandemic, and, in light of that, the Government has indeed taken on more debt in order to support New Zealanders’ lives and livelihoods through that. We continue to have one of the lowest levels of net debt in the world—lower than Australia, lower than the UK, lower than the US, lower than the euro area. We will continue to borrow where we need to. In answer to the second part of the member’s question, he should actually take a look. Money has already being provisioned for Wellington’s rapid transit and also for parts of the Auckland rapid transit as well.

Question No. 4—Health

4. to the Minister of Health: What medicines does New Zealand now have available to treat those with COVID-19?

The Government recently secured access to two new pharmaceutical drugs for treating COVID-19—Ronapreve and baricitinib. Baricitinib is the fifth drug Pharmac has secured and sits alongside remdesivir, tocilizumab, molnupiravir, and Ronapreve as treatments doctors can turn to to help people with a range of COVID-19 symptoms. The addition of new drugs to the suite of COVID19 medicines is good news for patients and for the health system as they help to reduce the severity of symptoms, cut time in hospital, and reduce the likelihood of death. All of these treatments are in addition to vaccination, which, of course, remains the best protection against COVID-19.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: How can these be used to treat COVID-19?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Some of these newly secured pharmaceutical treatments can help save lives and cut time in hospital, like tocilizumab, baricitinib can be used to help patients who are very sick. Ronapreve is a monoclonal antibody drug, and there is a lot of excitement about it—

💬 Hon Member: Yes!

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —including in this House. The clinical advice is that it is a massive advance because it reduces the severity of COVID-19 and decreases the risk of patients passing the virus on to other people. Again, these treatments are in addition to the best defence against COVID-19, which is getting vaccinated.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: When will these new treatments be available to the public?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Therapeutic treatments will only become available to the public once Medsafe has completed their approval process. Tocilizumab and remdesivir are approved by Medsafe for use in New Zealand for other purposes than COVID-19, but currently Medsafe is considering their approval process for those drugs for COVID-19. Molnupiravir, Ronapreve, and baricitinib are yet to be approved. All are currently undergoing the Medsafe approval process. However, it is important that we continue pursuing purchases ahead of the approval process to ensure availability as soon as possible, something that I know the Opposition has been concerned about in relation to other treatments. For example, Pharmac expects to receive 500 doses of baricitinib this month, which is important because there’s a global shortage of tocilizumab, and this gives clinicians another option. We’ve also secured 60,000 courses of molnupiravir as well as enough doses of Ronapreve to be able to treat 5,300 people, and we expect to be able to buy more next year.

💬 Chris Bishop: Has New Zealand signed an advance purchase agreement for Pfizer’s new antiviral pill called PAXLOVID, which early studies show is 89 percent effective in reducing risk of hospitalisation or death from COVID-19, and if not, why not?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not aware that an advance purchase agreement has been signed at this point but I’m very confident that Pharmac, as our drug procurement agency, has been out in world markets making sure that we get the best opportunities that we can to make sure we have a good suite of drugs in our COVID-19 armoury, and they’re doing a very good job.

Question No. 5—Health

5. to the Associate Minister of Health: Has she seen the recently published research that estimates up to 100 colorectal cancer cases per year may be attributable to nitrates in drinking water; if so, what is her response?

I assume the member refers to the paper Nitrate contamination in drinking water and colorectal cancer: Exposure assessment and estimated health burden in New Zealand by Richards et al. in the journal of Environmental Research. That study relied on previous epidemiological studies suggesting an association between nitrates and colorectal cancer and assumed these associations were true to project the number of cancers that could occur in the New Zealand population. It did not directly assess the relationship between individual exposure to nitrate and colorectal cancer in New Zealand. The authors and their paper and their press release acknowledge this is one of the limitations of their study. I am aware of emerging research in this field and have instructed health officials to monitor new evidence as it comes to light, and to report back to me as appropriate.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: When she said, in answer to written question No. 4695, that the Ministry of Health will “respond appropriately to identified risks to public health.”, what action is the ministry taking in response to the growing number of studies about the potential health impacts of nitrate levels in drinking water?

💬 Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The Ministry of Health has reviewed the association between nitrates and colorectal cancer this year, and, in addition, in response to other questions about a hypothesised relationship between nitrates and perinatal outcomes, has commissioned a systematic review of the evidence by the Liggins Institute of Auckland University into that association. That report, I believe, will be published soon.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: What reports, if any, has she had from the now-disbanded informal working group established in late 2019 to consider possible links between nitrates and bowel cancer in New Zealand?

💬 Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The process that I outlined in my previous answer is the process that we have used to evaluate the scientific evidence of any association between nitrates and drinking water. Other work may be required if other associations come to light, but, for the time being, I am happy with the process that the ministry has been through.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister agree with Dr Chambers’ statement: “the results support the need to take a precautionary approach towards nitrate contamination in New Zealand”; if she does agree with Dr Chambers’ statement, what does she consider a “precautionary approach” to chronic exposure to nitrate in drinking water sources requires?

💬 Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: This Government takes the importance of safe drinking water extremely seriously, and that is the basis of our three waters reforms, which include alterations to the regulations of drinking water in response to the events of drinking-water contamination at Havelock North. With respect to the question about the precautionary principle, we will act on evidence, and, as I have mentioned, the evidence in this issue is unclear. I’ve had the experience in this role of having to stop a town from drinking its drinking-water supply, and it is incredibly disruptive. So I am happy with an approach where we act on conclusive evidence.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: So how much more evidence of risks to human health from nitrate contamination in drinking water is needed before the Government takes action to protect the public and drinking-water supplies from nitrate pollution?

💬 Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The evaluation of an environmental exposure with a public health outcome is incredibly complex and usually requires evaluating multiple different features of the evidence. I continue to ask the Ministry of Health to review that. I do note that two other university epidemiologists, in relation to this issue, have also tried to contextualise the scale of the risk here. For example, Professor Brian Cox said, “At this stage, there is no cause for alarm. Even those drinking nitrate-rich water, the risk is small compared to eating a high diet in processed meat.” Professor Michael Baker said, “We need to have a reasonable sense of proportion. The evidence is on the weaker end of the spectrum, and the association does not necessarily mean causation.”

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Supplementary [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister consider that nitrogen pollution in rivers and aquifers from intensive dairying in Aotearoa New Zealand is a risk to human health?

💬 Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I believe that nitrate pollution of fresh water is an environmental problem that I am concerned about. I support this Government’s action to clean up fresh water for the reason that it is an environmental problem.

💬 SPEAKER: Now, I haven’t done this for a long time, but after I called order then, three National Party members interjected while Eugenie Sage was on her feet. I just want to indicate to members that that is not acceptable and the consequences of it—and it might have been two National and one ACT, just to be absolutely fair. There were at least—I’m getting negatives from the front and positives from the back, so some people need to get the story constant. Is there a further supplementary?

Question No. 6—Transport

6. to the Minister of Transport: Has he received advice from officials relating to the possibility of Aucklanders being given allocated timeslots to leave Auckland over the summer period, and what other options, if any, is the Government considering about Aucklanders leaving the region over summer?

on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I received advice on a range of options that would support this Government’s commitment to ensuring Aucklanders are able to leave the region for Christmas and the summer holidays. At the same time, we need to strike the right balance and do what we can for the rest of the country, to try and ensure that it’s people and not the virus that move beyond the Auckland boundary. No system will be perfect, and it will be challenging, but we’re looking at how we can use tools like vaccine certificates and testing to achieve these goals. While no decisions have been made, we are talking with different sectors and groups who will be key to making any land boundary work safely and smoothly, and we’ll keep the public up to speed with developments.

💬 Chris Bishop: Is the proposal of giving Aucklanders an allocated timeslot in order to leave Auckland during summer still under active consideration?

As I indicated in my primary answer, on behalf of the Minister of Transport, no decisions have been made at this point.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. The question wasn’t whether any decisions have been made but whether they were still under active consideration, and that hadn’t been addressed.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think it has been addressed. It might be slightly coded, but I’ve been here for a long time, and if decisions haven’t been made, they are under active consideration, or passive consideration, or not being considered at all.

💬 Chris Bishop: On what date did he first instruct the Ministry of Transport to look at options of Aucklanders being able to cross the border should the region have transitioned to the new COVID-19 Protection Framework but the rest of the country is at the old alert level framework, and has he received that advice yet?

On behalf of the Minister of Transport, officials have been working on a range of options around how to manage the Auckland boundary once the country transitions to the new COVID-19 Protection Framework, and that work has been under way since before the protection framework was announced. It started while the protection framework was being developed.

💬 Chris Bishop: Will New Zealanders outside of Auckland be able to travel into Auckland post - 29 November, irrespective of what framework is in place on either side of the border?

It is the Government’s intention to allow people to move in and out of Auckland in time for the summer holidays.

💬 Chris Bishop: On what date did he ask for official advice in relation to options to allow Aucklanders to leave Auckland over the summer period?

As I indicated in my answer to the previous supplementary question, discussions around movement across the Auckland boundary have been ongoing since the COVID protection framework was under development. I don’t have a particular date, but it has been several months’ worth of discussion.

Question No. 7—Building and Construction

7. to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent reports has she seen regarding building consents?

Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I’ve seen a report from Statistics New Zealand which shows the number of new homes consented in the year ended 30 September 2021 is at a record high of 47,331. This is an increase of 25 percent from the September 2020 year. We reached a milestone earlier this year in March 2021 when we consented more homes to be built than any other Government in a year since the 1970s. Now, for a seventh month in a row, we have continued to outperform these records while the sector has remained resilient in spite of the challenges posed by COVID-19.

💬 Shanan Halbert: What does this report show for Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The report has also shown the number of consents in Auckland has continued to rise and is now up 29 percent on this time last year. The groundbreaking levels of demand for residential construction we are currently experiencing, paired with the strong Government investment in infrastructure, has meant the sector has been in a stronger position to front our recovery from COVID-19.

💬 Shanan Halbert: How is the Government supporting the building and construction sector to build on this growth and its consents?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: This Government’s investment in the construction sector—it’s creating more jobs; helping us to retain and grow construction skills; and building warmer, dry, secure housing at a critical time. Already, the sector has had a 5.1 percent increase in employees over the last year with approximately 10 percent of the national workforce working in the sector.

Question No. 8—Education

8. to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by all of his actions and statements in education?

Yes, in the context in which they were made.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Which statement is correct—his reported comment on RNZ that teachers would not be “pitched out of the classroom” if they had not had their first dose by Tuesday, or his ministry’s guidance that said staff who “refuse to meet vaccination requirements cannot return to work on site from Tuesday, 16 November”?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Both are correct, but the latter one is more correct. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Quite the opposite.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is that the new legal standard that he’s operating for, so after all the time he’s had to prepare for a vaccine mandate, the current advice to each of the 2,500 schools is they have to go and get some legal advice on how to handle the employment issues?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, the reason I’m not absolutely definitive in choosing between the two statements is that there are some exceptions.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: What exceptions?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If people get an exemption.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Having swiftly adopted two parts of National’s education plan, reopening schools and postponing the curriculum review, when will he adopt the rest—specifically, a plan to catch up on lost education ground?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I would instead describe National’s plan as a return to the failed policies of the past.

💬 SPEAKER: For which he has no responsibility.

Question No. 9—Economic and Regional Development

9. to the Minister for Economic and Regional Development: What changes has the Government made regarding the payment of the living wage to Public Service contractors providing cleaning, catering, and security services?

I have today announced a Cabinet decision to direct core Public Service departments to ensure that contracts for cleaning, catering, and security guards pay at least the living wage rate of $22.75 per hour. These contractors are employed via third parties and are some of the lowest-paid workers in Government. It was a manifesto commitment to extend the living wage guarantee to these workers to address significant disparities in wages across the State sector. The changes will take effect for contracts signed or renewed after 1 December. I want to acknowledge the amazing work of advocates in the living wage movement and its allies in pushing for this change.

💬 Ibrahim Omer: What levers does the Public Service have to drive change for vulnerable workers through its purchasing practices?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: Government agencies have incredible buying power. We’re using our procurement levers to drive real and progressive change across a number of areas, from climate change goals to providing work for a more diverse range of businesses that supply the Government. In this case, we are using it to pay people a wage they can live on. The Government wants to send a signal to the market that improving the conditions of workers is something that we want to make progress on, and to do that we have to lead by example.

💬 Ibrahim Omer: What other parts of the Public Service are paying the living wage to their contractors?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: I would like to shout out once again to those working on our COVID response and in our managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facilities. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s own procurement team has recently ensured the living wage was implemented through their procurement of MIQ commercial contracts. This means all staff across all 32 facilities are now on the living wage equivalent or higher, and there is a provision built in that the wage will continue to increase as the living wage increases. The living wage will improve living standards for workers and their whānau, which is even more important during a global pandemic. We absolutely recognise that low-paid workers are particularly vulnerable to economic impacts of the crisis.

Question No. 10—Local Government

10. to the Minister of Local Government: Does she stand by her statement regarding Three Waters reform, “There are about 30 various models that we tested against the Government’s objectives”; if so, against what criteria were they tested?

on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I stand by the full statement I made. There were a wide range of models tested during the policy development process, including modelling of 30 aggregation scenarios. These ranged from a one entity scenario covering the whole of New Zealand to a 13 entity scenario. These are summarised in the final report by the Water Industry Commission for Scotland, which was published by the Department of Internal Affairs as part of the national evidence base supporting the reform proposals. In addition, a wide range of alternative policy options were considered, including not pursuing aggregation. These include, for example, support for voluntary reform proposals by local government and Waka Kotahi - style funding models. The range of options considered are also outlined in the department’s regulatory impact statement.

In answer to the second part of the question, the options were assessed against the criteria of whether the reform proposals improve economic efficiency and support a financially sustainable system—including achieving balance sheet separation, improving infrastructure delivery, improving decision making and performance—and can be easily implemented. The current system of 67 different council water providers is clearly not meeting delivery of safe, affordable, and sustainable three water services, and this is something that most people agree on. Aggregation is required to achieve the outcomes we want, and we are confident that the model we have chosen is the right way forward.

💬 Simon Court: What, if any, input did councils have into generating or testing the 30 models against the Government’s objectives prior to Cabinet signing off on the Government’s preferred model?

On behalf of the Minister, over the course of the last four years, the Government has been consulting across the community, including with local government, about the reform process. A series of workshops have been held around various options and scenarios, in which local government has participated.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very specific question about the 30 models that were on notice. Now, he’s given a bland answer that there’s lots of consultation. He did not address the question about the 30 models that the primary question put him on notice to answer about.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think it is unreasonable to suggest as part of an answer to an oral question in this House that the consultation on each of the 30 models is outlined in any detail whatsoever. In this particular case, on the supplementary question, the Minister did indicate that there were workshops involving local government consulting on this matter.

💬 Simon Court: Can the Minister give an example of a change that was made to the proposed model because of council concerns?

Well, it’s not just the concerns of councils. Throughout this process, the Government has looked at the model, modified the model as we’ve gone through. It would be impossible for the Government to be able to accept all of the issues and all of the concerns raised by local government. But we have continued to look, for example, at where entity boundaries sit, as a result of conversations with local government. I would say, on behalf of the Minister, that there definitely is an easy path forward here: that’s to do nothing. And the result of that path is more people getting sick, people paying more for their water, more sewage spills. The Opposition by all means can take that position, but it is irresponsible.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked to give an example. He’s addressed that and he’s now going on a tirade about alternatives which is irrelevant.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, yes, and that member, as I indicated yesterday, is one of the more knowledgeable people in the House on the Standing Orders, and he knows absolutely that the length of the ministerial answer is a matter for my judgment and not for point of order.

💬 Simon Court: Supplementary question.

💬 SPEAKER: No. Well, the Minister was interrupted.

No, no.

💬 SPEAKER: He’s said enough. All right.

💬 Simon Court: Why didn’t the Cabinet papers that Cabinet signed off to decide Government policy on three waters on 14 June refer to or analyse any of the 30 models?

On behalf of the Minister, Cabinet has had many discussions about the three waters reforms. There have been subgroups of Ministers, there have been Cabinet committees, there have been papers going to Cabinet. The member shouldn’t just focus on one paper.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she stand by her Cabinet paper that said Standard & Poor’s had ruled out a council-controlled organisation (CCO) model when Standard & Poor’s own advice never mentioned a CCO model at all?

On behalf of the Minister, six scenarios were tested with Standard & Poor’s. Among these included scenarios that are akin to a CCO model, including where councillors have approval rights over the statements of intent, where there would be no independent selection panel or councillors voting on the appointment, and where councillors could remove members of a water service entity. There is no one single CCO model.

💬 Simon Court: Did any of the 30 models look at different governance or financing structures like Auckland’s Watercare model, and what is the Minister’s response to the Mayor of Auckland, who’s been reported saying that Government declined an invitation from Auckland to jointly analyse alternative models?

As I’ve just said in the previous answer, a number of models were analysed. Six scenarios were put to Standard & Poor’s that mirrored a CCO-style model. Watercare is one example of a CCO model, and I would note that all of its debt sits on the Auckland Council’s balance sheet, which is one of the significant issues we were trying to address—balance sheet separation.

💬 Simon Court: Is it correct that of the 30 models that were analysed, really they were just different groupings and numbers of entities, and none of them considered alternative governance or investment models such as the Watercare option?

As I said in my primary answer, there were 30 aggregation scenarios, but other alternative policy options were also considered.

Question No. 11—Local Government

11. to the Minister of Local Government: Does she stand by all of her statements and actions regarding the Three Waters reforms?

on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: Yes, including the statements that there is widespread agreement that the status quo is unsustainable and that the case for change is urgent, that it is irresponsible to not act given that we all know that this issue affects every New Zealander and, as we’ve seen, can cause serious health issues and even death. I’ve seen an alternative put forward by the member’s party that would deliver safe drinking water, ensure value for money—an estimated $180 billion investment over 30 years—but that has not been made available. I also stand by the statement that families and communities who suffer when three waters infrastructure fails are not interested in endless debate; they want action.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she agree that ownership rights entail financial recognition, a formal shareholding, and control of assets; and will councils have those rights under her model?

On behalf of the Minister, the member is aware that, for example, formal shareholding rights are not part of this. The only reason to have those would be if you intended to sell those shares.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she agree that businesses are owned by shareholders, who have a defined number of shares and know how much of the business they actually own, and, if so, how can her collective ownership model seriously be described as ownership?

On behalf of the Minister, it’s called public ownership; but I’m not surprised that the member doesn’t understand that.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Which of her Government’s various definitions of Crown ownership, public ownership, local ownership, and now collective ownership—if any—mean that councils would keep any control of their local water assets?

On behalf of the Minister, councils will collectively own the water service entities. What we are changing here is decades-long under-investment in our water infrastructure that has made people sick and has meant that people are paying far more than they need to in support of their water. The easy answer here is to do nothing. That’s the Opposition’s path. We are actually getting on with giving New Zealanders better water.

Question No. 12—Education (School Operations)

12. to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations): What support has been allocated specifically to Auckland schools to help re-engage students in education?

The Government has provided a targeted $15 million package to help re-engage Auckland students in their education, following long periods of the distance learning that has been necessary to keep kids safe from COVID-19. Our teachers have done an incredible job at delivering education online for our students, especially in Auckland. Online learning has been necessary and has meant many students are able to continue their education while staying safe from COVID-19. But it has its challenges. This $15 million package includes a mix of community-based and targeted support, and covers targeted support for Māori and Pacific students, a rapid resurgence fund, deployment of the TK400 programme, additional funding for learning support, additional counselling services, scaling up of the Check and Connect programme, and additional funding for the Attendance Service. This funding is already hitting the ground and I know it is making a difference.

💬 Camilla Belich: Why was this package of initiatives chosen as the best approach to re-engaging young people?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: This $15 million package is made up of carefully selected, proven, and effective interventions to help re-engage students. This was based off both previous experience from the last COVID-19 nationwide lockdown, evaluations undertaken by educational research bodies, and in consultation with educational practitioners on the ground. For example, the highly successful TK400 NCEA secondary school programme is designed for students from deprived communities that have either disengaged or dropped out of school. The programme was used following the last nationwide lockdown and uses a mix of online and face-to-face teaching formats suited for at-risk students. The last cohort saw 96 percent of students finishing, with a transition plan to continue their education or move into employment. This programme, combined with other targeted educational and mental health initiatives from this Government, will support a safe and effective return to in-class learning.

💬 Camilla Belich: What impact will this funding have for Auckland schools and students?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: This funding will help those students who are finding it tough to stay engaged with their learning through the remainder of term 4, and it will also support them over summer so that they do return to their education next year. This $15 million will help both our older students who have returned to school and heading into exams, as well as younger students who get back to face-to-face learning from 17 November. Our more vulnerable students, in deciles 1 to 4 schools, are our biggest priority, as they are the most at risk. These young people often face compounding challenges and need to be connected with a local community leader who they can trust. This is why we have distributed the funding in a way that uses a combination of funding to schools and to community providers on a needs basis, as they know their kids and their communities best.