Oral Questions

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

Yes.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why did she ignore advice from Dr Bloomfield that there is “no public health justification to maintain a boundary around Auckland under the [COVID19 Protection Framework].”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: All the way through the pandemic, of course, we have taken on board the advice of our public health officials, but we’ve also weighed that against the requirement to consider the best interests of all New Zealand as well. Our view was that over the summer period there would be a large amount of movement across New Zealand and that we could best balance the interest of Aucklanders’ need to move with the interest of the rest of New Zealand not having a large increase in COVID cases by simply requiring unvaccinated individuals to be tested before departure and for other Aucklanders to carry proof of vaccine.

💬 Christopher Luxon: What does she say to the thousands of Kiwis who’ve been kept from seeing family members or saying goodbye to loved ones because of her decision to ignore health advice and instead maintain a hard Auckland border?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I fundamentally disagree with the statement the member’s made there. He claims that the director-general has given advice that there should be no boundary around Auckland at all. In fact, in his evidence he talks about the role that it played in preventing the spread of COVID cases throughout the country.

💬 Christopher Luxon: What advice has she had on the number of businesses that have gone under or the additional cost to the economy as a result of her decision to keep the Auckland border closed despite being advised by Dr Bloomfield that there was no public health justification for it?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the member is misinterpreting, or in fact possibly not even reading, the director-general’s statement. He talked about, in their view, there no longer being a need for a hard enforced border from the point—at that point, the COVID-19 Protection Framework came in likely in mid-December. So it is incorrect to claim that we have kept the boundary longer than we were advised to by Health. What it is fair to point out is when we changed that boundary, Health said we could simply lift it. Our view was that the rest of New Zealand would appreciate additional measures to stop the spread of COVID-19. But it would be in keeping with the member’s “let it rip” strategy with COVID.

💬 SPEAKER: Before I call David Seymour, I just want to say that I had quite a few complaints yesterday about the level of noise. Some of it was a general complaint about the noise on my left, but there were some very specific complaints about sparring finance people, especially while the Prime Minister’s mike was open. That is to stop.

💬 David Seymour: What does the Prime Minister say to shopkeepers like my constituents Dave and Sumi in Mt Eden, who’ve had their shop robbed multiple times, called the police, and they don’t come because they’re busy enforcing a border the health advice said wasn’t even necessary?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, I would ask them to raise then with their local member why he stands opposed to the idea of additional support for the police checkpoints through the use of the Defence Force, Māori wardens, community wardens, and Pacific wardens, because he seems to object to that.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why doesn’t she simply just make the call and open the Auckland border tonight?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because that boundary—which Aucklanders, and I thank them for allowing this to be the case—has protected the rest of New Zealand from being part of a Delta outbreak, which in many other parts of the world has been devastating. I thank Aucklanders for the work that they’ve done, and so does the rest of New Zealand, because that is the reason we have not seen an outbreak beyond that border that has been beyond measure, unable to be controlled. So to Aucklanders, again: we all thank you.

💬 Christopher Luxon: How are Kiwis expected to get ahead under a Government that keeps them locked down longer than needed and when the cost of living is rising at 4.9 percent but wages are rising at just 2.4 percent, giving average Kiwis a pay cut?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The only advice that I have seen suggesting that we have kept Auckland locked down longer than needed is from the Leader of the Opposition. The public health advice—again, I point to—reinforced keeping the boundary in place until mid-December, which is exactly what has happened, and that is because it allows us to get vaccination levels up, which allows us to keep our economy open, which allows us to keep people in jobs, and which allows us to be in the position where, relative to other OECD countries, we have continued to perform well.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Does she stand by her statement in relation to Māori providers seeking access to vaccination data that “we all want to accelerate vaccination rates and access to data will help with that.”; if not, why not?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, and as I’ve mentioned in this House before, one of the issues has been, of course, that that data has been provided to hauora providers, but then we’ve had an additional ask from Whānau Ora to also receive that individual-level data. The Ministry of Health in undertaking consultation with iwi around the release of that encountered some who held the view that it should not be released. The court has now asked Health to finish its work in the next 72 hours to resolve this situation, and the Government supports them to do that.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: What specific actions has her Government taken to release data in response to Whānau Ora winning again in the High Court this week, given that she recognises the need to access data to boost vaccination rates?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The court actually didn’t award the release that was being sought by the Whānau Ora commissioning agent for the immediate release of that data. They did ask the ministry to complete its process, and I guess what I would come back to with the member is they originally sought that the ministry try and resolve the issues that were being raised by iwi. That has been done in, my recollection is, two regions, but there have been outstanding issues that the ministry is now expediting. We bring it back, though, to what we’re all trying to achieve. Everyone wants Māori vaccination rates to lift, and can I just acknowledge everyone who has worked so hard to get them at 90 percent in Tāmaki-makau-rau, to get them at 84 percent in the rest of the country, and to see our over-60s at well over 90 percent. We just need to keep going.

💬 Christopher Luxon: How much of the record increase in the cost of living does she believe is a result of the 40 percent increase in Government spending she’s overseen over the last four years?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, that is a curious question, given the rest of the world is experiencing the same thing and has not directly replicated what New Zealand has done here. As I said yesterday, the US is at 6.2 percent, the UK at 4.2 percent, Canada at 4.7 percent, the eurozone 4.9 percent—the inflation that everyone is experiencing currently we can point strongly to the impacts of COVID. Increasing demand, supply chain constraints, shipping issues, increases in the cost of oil—we are not immune to that. But if the member would like to advocate for cuts in Government spending that have substantively gone towards supporting the business community, then that is his prerogative.

💬 Hon Michael Wood: Does she stand by the Government’s decision to increase the minimum wage to ensure that the incomes of low-income New Zealanders keep pace with the cost of living? [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Right—OK. The members who interjected then will stand up. They will all apologise and they’re all on final warnings for the day.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Member: Three stooges.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I’m just trying to decide whether to continue with the question.

💬 Hon Michael Wood: Does she stand by the Government’s decision to increase the minimum wage to ensure that the incomes of low-income New Zealanders keep up with the cost of living?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I absolutely do. This Government has always been mindful of the impact of the cost of living on low to moderate income earners. It is why we have stood by, of course, increases in the minimum wage which the Opposition said would lead to job losses. We now have record low unemployment. It’s why we have, of course, increased the family tax credit, made changes to Working for Families, and consistently had an eye to lowering and decreasing child poverty in this country. I know, though, that the member opposite will not agree. He has very openly spoken against the increases on minimum wage.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Isn’t it true that with rent up more than 20 percent and food prices up more than 10 percent since she came into office, hard-working Kiwis are actually going backwards under her Government?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, I do not agree with the premise of that member’s question, because, of course, until the more recent quarters, we did see wage growth outstrip growth in inflation measures. Again, in more recent times, we have seen that increase, but so has the rest of the developed world. It is the impact of COVID. I would seek, then, the views of the member as to what he would do—price controls, perhaps? I would be interested to see his resolution, because, currently, he seems to be advocating for the removal of things like the wage subsidy, resurgence support payments, or perhaps even investment in our Government services.

Question No. 2—Finance

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

ANZ’s latest Quarterly Economic Outlook has reported that economic momentum heading into the Delta outbreak was “nothing short of remarkable”, and during the higher alert level restrictions, the wider economy has been performing very well—“better than anyone dared hope”. It reports that it is clear that macroeconomic stimulus has done what it can to limit the economic fallout from lockdowns. Domestic demand remains strong, unemployment at record lows, while business confidence is above pre-crisis levels. The growth in goods export prices has outstripped import prices and led to good returns in dairy, meat, and horticulture. Looking ahead, the ANZ expects low unemployment and a robust household sector, which will underpin a sustainable growth path for the economy of 4.2 percent in 2021 and 3.9 percent in 2022.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen on the labour market and its impacts on the economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the jobs market is supporting our recovery. Stats NZ reported last week that seasonally adjusted filled jobs continue to grow, rising 0.1 percent in October compared with a month earlier to reach a new high of 2.28 million. The number of jobs for men rose by 37,526, and for women by 37,414 on the same period. On an annual basis, the biggest gains have been in healthcare, construction, and professional services. Interestingly, accommodation and food services also rose by 5.3 percent, adding 7,559 jobs. Despite ongoing restrictions, Auckland added more jobs, rising by 3.4 percent for the September year, with gains also in the Waikato, Canterbury, Wellington, and the Bay of Plenty.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m sorry to do this, but I feel like I have to. There’s a prominent member of the House not actually wearing a mask at the moment. [Member puts mask on]

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

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to warn the member that his first two answers have been far too long.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Right. So much good news! The OECD Economic Outlook for December—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! That’s the end of it.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the latest ANZ Quarterly Economic Outlook’s assessment that “Government spending remains highly expansionary … The fiscal situation is quite nuanced. Many businesses and households are in desperate need of targeted support, but from a macroeconomic perspective, high government spending in an economy facing severe capacity constraints risks just adding to inflation pressures. That wouldn’t be a good return for taxpayers, and also implies the RBNZ will need to hike interest rates more than otherwise”?

I thank the member for floating up to the macroeconomic level, as his leader suggested! I agree with the ANZ that many businesses and households are in need of targeted support and that the fiscal situation is nuanced. That’s why this Government has invested in our businesses and households during this one-in-100-year shock. As the ANZ says, there is a balance to be struck. We will be careful and focused in future spending decisions in order to provide targeted support and address the long-term challenges facing the economy.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he accept that one of the reasons inflation is at its highest level in over 30 years and Kiwis’ wages are going backwards in real terms is because his Government has increased Government spending by 40 percent since 2017 and is now overcooking the economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I do not accept the member’s analysis. What I do accept is that in recent months, the Government has had to provide a significant amount of targeted support to businesses, through things like the wage subsidy scheme and the resurgence support payment, and, indeed, I have stood in this House and been called upon by the Opposition to put more money into those areas. The member cannot have it both ways.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Has Treasury provided him with a view on whether his Government’s decision to run structural Budget deficits for the next five years, at a time of very high inflation and tightening monetary policy, is in line with the principles of the Public Finance Act, which requires Governments to have regard to the interaction between fiscal and monetary policy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we traversed in the select committee this morning, the Public Finance Act foresees a situation where, in the event of a crisis such as what we have experienced with COVID-19, the Government is able to run the books in the way that we are and still meet the Public Finance Act. It is fiscally prudent to make sure that we support people to stay in jobs, and that’s what we’ve done.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Why is the Government running structural Budget deficits for the next five years, at a time when monetary policy is having to tighten to offset it, hurting many millions of Kiwis in the process?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member cannot wish away COVID-19, a one-in-100-year economic shock. The Government took the responsible action of supporting businesses, of supporting Kiwis to stay in work, and I stand by those decisions.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he accept that he is turning up the heat on the economy with his increased Government spending so that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand has to try and turn down the cooker in terms of interest rates, to dampen inflation more than would otherwise be the case?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is well aware that the inflationary pressures are being seen all around the world. What this Government has done is make sure that we invest in supporting people to stay in work and balance that with a responsible fiscal position. I do note that the member’s party’s fiscal position wouldn’t see a surplus until 2028.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he accept that overcooking the economy quite literally means less for Kiwis to cook this Christmas, with the price of fruit and veggies, for example, having gone up 9 percent this year, well above the 2.4 percent average wage increases?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That’s interesting, isn’t it, because here we now have the true colours of this particular National Party. I presume that means the member is going to propose a price freeze. Welcome back, Muldoon.

Question No. 4—Education

4. to the Minister of Education: What reports has he seen about numbers of people undertaking vocational education and training?

I’ve seen reports about the take-up of the Targeted Training and Apprenticeship Fund, which has been supporting fees-free training for all apprentices and those who have been undertaking vocational education and training in targeted industries where demand for skills will continue to be strong or is expected to grow as we recover from the impacts of COVID-19. Between 1 July last year and 30 November this year, over 175,000 New Zealanders have been supported by that fund. More than 83,000 of these were in apprenticeship programmes, more than 52,000 were trainees in the workplace, and 47,000 were at our polytechs and other vocational education providers. The Targeted Training and Apprenticeship Fund is attracting learners from across the community: Māori account for 20 percent of all of those being supported, Pacific people around 9 percent, Asian New Zealanders 14 percent, and, encouragingly, around a quarter of the learners being supported are over the age of 40, so are being supported to increase their skills whilst in work.

💬 Marja Lubeck: What support have employers received from the Apprenticeship Boost initiative in relation to vocational learners in their workplaces?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Apprenticeship Boost, which sits alongside the Targeted Training and Apprenticeship Fund, is part of our COVID-19 support initiatives. The increase in spending that we’ve done as a result of COVID-19 helps employers keep their early-stage apprentices employed and training towards their qualifications. Since it started in August last year, we have paid out support to over 15,500 employers, and that has allowed them to retain in their jobs 38,000 first- and second-year apprentices whilst also taking on new apprentices. As a result of that, we now have record numbers of apprentices, which is in stark contrast to the global financial crisis when apprenticeship numbers fell. To the end of October, we funded support for 70,000 apprentices compared to 52,000 in the same period last year—that’s an increase of over 32 percent.

💬 Marja Lubeck: What responses is he aware of regarding numbers in vocational learning and the support provided by Government?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, I was recently made aware of the response by the Concave Construction co-chair, Graham Burke, who discussed the 49 percent jump in apprenticeship numbers since August of 2019 with my good friend, Mike Hosking, yesterday. Mr Burke told Mike Hosking that the increase was a direct result of the Government’s Apprenticeship Boost policy, and to quote him directly, he said, “It’s had amazing results.”

Question No. 5—Social Development and Employment

5. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Is the Government still committed to welfare overhaul; if so, why does the Child Poverty Action Group report released today show not a single key recommendation from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group has been fully implemented nearly three years on?

Yes, and we are making good progress on the overhaul. This progress includes the biggest lift in benefits in decades, reversing the cuts made in 1991. The Child Poverty Action Group do great work, but their report released today does not highlight the extensive policy work under way and it assumes every recommendation has a finish line. We’ve always been very upfront: these reforms require massive structural change and will take time. Transformation needs to be well thought through and coherent to be effective. Alongside the benefit rise, our progress has included removing the sanctions which impact children the most, investing $5.5 billion through the Families Package, increasing the minimum wage to $20, indexing benefits to average wage increases, raising abatement thresholds, investing heavily in job training, and increasing our public housing supply. There is more to do—I have never shied away from that—but the mahi is getting done.

💬 Jan Logie: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why has she removed many of the 2020 COVID19 supports or made them time limited when these were all recommended by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG) and supposedly accepted in principle by the Government?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I would refute that. I think one of the clear areas of recommendation in the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report was around investment in upskilling and training and employment opportunities. COVID and the pandemic in general really did impress on the Government the need to bring forward much of that investment and that work, and that continues to this point and will continue moving forward.

💬 Jan Logie: What is her response to the report, which finds—and I’ll quote—“If [the] welfare reform had happened on the [time line] envisaged by WEAG, communities would have had the financial resilience to face the challenges of Covid-19 [pandemic] with … confidence. As it is, the government’s slow pace of reform is increasing Covid-19-related inequity and distress, jeopardising public health measures.”?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Again, I’d refute the slow pace. I totally would accept, though, that there is more to do, and we certainly at certain points have been able to outline our time frame and what is in the short-, medium- and long-term time frames with regards to implementation of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s recommendations. I won’t deny that COVID did throw a bit of a spanner in the works; it meant that some things came forward and other things were pushed back. With regards to responding to the income needs of families experiencing hardship, particularly those in the welfare system, we did move very quickly to index benefits to wages. We did in April last year immediately implement an increase in benefits, and then again this year through the Budget, which saw an immediate implementation in July, and more will come into effect in April next year. That’s alongside a suite of other measures. Again, I will not deny that there is more to do, but I will refute the idea that we haven’t actioned the Welfare Expert Advisory Group recommendations and that we haven’t been consistently overhauling the welfare system since we got into Government.

💬 Terisa Ngobi: What else has this Government done that responds to the WEAG report and is part of the welfare overhaul work programme?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There is a range of work under way that responds to the recommendations in the report. This work has been carried out across many Government departments. Examples include establishing a new Ministry for Disabled People, beginning a full reform of the health sector, investing more into out-of-school care and recreation and after-school care programmes, supporting families through more lunches in schools, consenting more new homes than any Government since the 1970s, delivering over a thousand new transitional and 8,000 public housing places, and reforming the culture at the Ministry of Social Development and changing the physical environment to make it more inclusive and accessible. I acknowledge there is more to do, but it is important to take stock and acknowledge what has already been done.

💬 Jan Logie: Will she now accelerate WEAG recommendations to further lift incomes in light of the Child Poverty Monitor report, which shows Māori and Pasifika and disabled tamariki are experiencing up to twice the levels of hardship as their peers?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As announced at Budget, there were benefit increases that really do restore the benefit or incomes to a point that fixes what was done in 1991. There’s more to do, but I do want to also state that in terms of addressing child poverty, it’s not just about what happens in the welfare system or with the Ministry of Social Development. It is about ensuring that we have programmes like Food in Schools, that we do address issues like access to period products, that we do address issues like access to healthcare. Many of these things have been addressed and continue to be addressed by this Government, and we do need to make sure that alongside our focus on the welfare system we are looking at other spaces to address child poverty as well.

💬 Jan Logie: How can she claim to be honouring the WEAG when modelling shows that if increases to core benefits in the family tax credit had happened in April 2019, as intended, a family with three children would be $18,700 better off in April next year?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think the most recent information I saw highlighted that a sole parent on benefit now is about $175 better off per week than what they were in 2017 when we took office, and that’s not including the winter energy payment. There is more to do but we have seen significant improvements with regards to income adequacy since we got into Government.

💬 Jan Logie: Does she agree with the comments of the children’s commissioner that an equitable poverty response which prioritises tamariki Māori and disabled children would increase benefits to livable levels and restore dignity to whānau Māori; if not, why not?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We are absolutely focused on Māori, Pacific, and disabled children, and do know what the evidence shows us and what we see, and that is that they are disproportionately impacted by poverty. Many of the changes that we have put in place through our welfare overhaul and in other aspects of our Government programme have been completely focused on addressing those inequities and ensuring that those children are lifted out of poverty. We have made some traction but we acknowledge there is more to do.

💬 Jan Logie: When will we see any of the WEAG recommendations fully implemented?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I said at the beginning, this is not a simple tick-box exercise. If I only look at, say, increasing our public housing stock, which was clearly indicated in the welfare expert advisory group’s report, I can say that we have been able to do that as a Government. But it’s not a matter of that job having been completed. We are committed to continuing to build more public housing and continuing to focus on ensuring that we are able to provide the housing for New Zealanders that is needed. But we can’t tick that one off; nor can we tick many of the others, because they are about consistently focusing on those recommendations and ensuring that we are committed to continually responding to them.

💬 SPEAKER: Before I call Dr Liz Craig for the next question, I just want to indicate to members, because I saw some disappointment in one quarter of the House, as to the allocation of the timing of supplementary questions then—I refer people to Speakers’ rulings 180/5 and 180/6, which indicate, first of all, that no one has a right to a supplementary question at all. But, more importantly, the rulings of Harrison and Wall, not the substantive part but the very first line, or line or two, are that it is the practice to give the member who asked the primary question the first supplementary; actually, it’s been my practice to give them the first two, and after that, if other members go for it, I will move around the House. Generally, if members want to have two supplementary questions, I’ll give them straight away rather than breaking it up. I just think the flow works a bit better there. But I did feel some evil looks at me at that particular point.

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I’ll just make it clear: more evil looks than normal.

Question No. 6—Health

6. to the Minister of Health: What medicines has New Zealand recently secured access to for treating COVID-19?

It’s important that we have a range of medicines to treat those who do get sick with COVID-19. That’s why I’m pleased to say that, on Monday, we announced that the national drug funding agency, Pharmac, has secured from Pfizer 60,000 courses of another antiviral medicine, which, like molnupiravir, which we secured in October, can be taken as a tablet. Both medications stop people with mild symptoms from becoming very sick. Alongside vaccinations, our hospital treatments are already reducing the likelihood of people needing ICU care, with the ICU rate in Auckland dropping to 3 percent of hospitalisations, down from 5.7 percent previously. Of course, vaccinations and following the “scan, mask, pass” routine are still the best ways of stopping the spread of COVID-19.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: How do these medicines support those recovering from COVID-19?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Pfizer’s antiviral drug, which does not yet have a brand name in New Zealand, inhibits replication but in a different way—by preventing the cleavage of certain proteins necessary to create a fully functioning virus. This means you’re less likely to get a fully functioning virus. This is similar to molnupiravir, which works by introducing copying errors during replication, which means you’re less likely to get a fully functioning virus.

💬 Chris Bishop: “Chippy” talked about this yesterday. The House knows about all this.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Just trying to assist Mr Bishop with the science of this virology. Both drugs are still subject to approval by Medsafe, but trials look promising, and, by securing access to both, we are doing everything possible to make sure New Zealanders have available medicines that are easy to administer and prevent most people who contract COVID-19 from being so sick that they need to go to hospital.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: When will these drugs be available alongside the broader COVID-19 therapeutics New Zealand has access to?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Pfizer antiviral is expected to be delivered to New Zealand in April, once approved by Medsafe. These medicines will be an important asset as we continue to prepare for winter in 2022 and will work alongside our wider suite of COVID-19 medicines already secured by Pharmac, which includes baricitinib, remdesivir, tocilizumab, and ronapreve. We’ve made sure Pharmac can continue to secure early access to new and promising COVID medicines as soon as possible, with $175 million allocated for medicines and supply chain costs and another $300 million available for purchasing more COVID-19 therapeutics.

Question No. 7—Prime Minister

7. to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement in relation to wage growth rising faster than inflation, “Of course, it has, with wage growth being at around 3.5 percent and inflation around 2 percent”; if so, does she agree with Statistics New Zealand that inflation for the year to September 2021 was 4.9 percent and wage growth was only 2.4 percent?

Yes, and yes.

💬 Nicole McKee: Does she accept that house prices have climbed by almost 30 percent in the past year, and what impact is this having on the cost of living for New Zealanders?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, we acknowledge, of course, what we’ve seen as a result of decades of issues around the housing market, where CoreLogic now are signalling a view that they believe we will start to see a change in the housing market with additional supply. Of course, the pipeline is also likely to improve with the significant increase in consenting that we’re seeing, and at the same time we see the percentage of first-home buyers moving from 22 percent to 26 percent. We know that a number of issues have contributed to the housing crisis we’ve seen, but our view is that by closing tax loopholes, by continuing to tilt the playing field towards first-home buyers and away from investors, through a considerable public housing build programme, and through significant Resource Management Act reform, we are pulling all of the levers available to us.

💬 Simon Court: Does she stand by Kris Faafoi’s estimate in 2019 that the Government’s fuel market reforms would reduce the price of petrol from between 18c to 32c a litre; and, if so, why are petrol prices now at record levels?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That’s because we’ve seen global oil prices rise sharply from US$17.55 a barrel to now US$78.33 a barrel.

💬 Chris Baillie: Supplementary?

💬 SPEAKER: Chris Baillie. This is a test!

💬 Chris Baillie: Does she accept that skills shortages and therefore business costs could have been alleviated if the Government had allowed the same level of flexibility at the border for business as they did for The Wiggles?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Over 190,000 individuals have entered into New Zealand since we have had border controls. Of course, we all would have liked a scenario where we could have had the best of both worlds—a COVID-free environment and free flow at the border—but that has, of course, not been possible. We made a call that we would put in place measures to protect the community against COVID. That is what has led our economy to perform better than many others, and, of course, now we’re in the phase of carefully reopening our borders.

💬 Karen Chhour: Is she concerned that the Government just had a record tax take of $97 billion while families struggled to pay for groceries; if so, does she intend to offer tax relief to Kiwi families?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member will be aware that we recently passed through this House adjustments to the family tax credit to ensure that families who are in receipt of Working for Families, which represents a large number of middle and low income earners, will see an increase in that tax credit. We see that as critical at this current time in our COVID recovery. That sits alongside the other measures that we have taken to the in-work tax credit, to Government support, to all make sure that we’re doing what we can for low and middle income earners.

💬 David Seymour: If the Prime Minister agrees with Statistics New Zealand that prices are rising twice as fast as wages, why did she tell the House it was the other way around yesterday, and what does that lack of awareness say about her compassion for hard-working Kiwis squeezed from every direction right now?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Unfortunately, it says that the member wasn’t listening to either his own question at the time or, indeed, to my answer. The member asked me about a statement that was made by the Minister of Finance in May of this year, and he asked about wage growth and inflation at that time. I replied, “Of course, it has, with wage growth being at around 3.5 percent and inflation around 2 percent.” And, at that time the member made that statement, that was Treasury’s future forecasting. The member has subsequently presented statistics from September. So the reason I can respond yes to both is because May, of course, precedes September.

Question No. 8—Building and Construction

8. to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent reports has she seen on the construction sector?

I’ve seen a report which shows that activity in the construction sector is strong and is playing a key role in supporting our COVID-19 recovery. The National Construction Pipeline Report shows that, despite disruptions from COVID-19, construction activity is forecast to grow to about $48 billion in 2024, driven largely by our residential sector. The report also projects a healthy increase in infrastructure activity, which is expected to grow from $9.2 billion in 2020, to reach $11.2 billion in 2026, reflecting the high levels of Government investment in this area.

Tāmati Coffey: What does this report show for employment opportunities in the construction sector?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Employment opportunities in this sector are on the rise, with the report highlighting that the industry is now the fourth-largest employer in the country, employing over 281,000 people. This has been helped by the Government’s ongoing investment in skills and training with the Construction Skills Action Plan, which was launched in October 2018. The action plan has a target of supporting 4,000 people into education and employment opportunities in the sector. I’m pleased to report that it has exceeded the target by more than sevenfold, supporting 29,000 people into education or employment opportunities in the building and construction sector.

Tāmati Coffey: What does the report show for activity in the residential construction sector?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: In the year to October, we saw a 26 percent increase in the number of new homes consented. The report shows that this level of growth will continue, with 265,000 new homes projected to be consented across the country in the next six years. The report also notes that the outlook for residential construction in Auckland is positive, with an estimated 11 percent increase in activity by 2026. The growth we are seeing in the sector illustrates the Government’s ongoing commitment to enabling more homes to be built and will support the Auckland economy by providing more jobs and apprenticeships.

Question No. 9—COVID-19 Response

9. to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Did the Government receive public health advice ahead of the Cabinet meeting on 29 November 2021 that the hard or enforced boundary around Auckland should be removed when Auckland and the rest of the country move to the COVID-19 Protection Framework, and did this same advice also recommend any regions enter the traffic light system at green?

In answer to the first part of the question, Cabinet decided to remove the Auckland boundary at its meeting on 15 November. We received public health advice ahead of that that suggested that the Auckland boundary be removed once the whole country moved to the traffic light framework, which would be a minimum of two weeks after all of the Auckland DHBs had reached the 90 percent fully vaccinated threshold. In answer to the second part of the question, the final recommendation in the public health advice provided ahead of Cabinet’s meeting on 29 November was that Auckland and Northland should be placed at red and the rest of the country at orange. We agreed with the public health advice that Auckland and Northland should go into the new framework at red. However, in keeping with our cautious approach, including considering factors such as vaccination rates, health system capacity, and the need to protect vulnerable communities during an increased period of travel, we decided that a couple of other regions should also enter the new framework at red.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why, when the Prime Minister said as recently as Monday that the Government places “a lot of weight on the public health advice it receives”, is there still a hard boundary around Auckland when the public health advice to the Government stated there is no justification to maintain a boundary around Auckland under the COVID protection framework?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t think the member listened to my answer that I gave to the primary question. If we were following public health advice to the letter, the entire country would not yet be in the COVID-19 Protection Framework (CPF); we would still be waiting for Auckland to be, two weeks after hitting the 90 percent fully vaccinated threshold, which Counties Manukau has yet to do. It’s likely to do that in the next day or two, but we would still be waiting potentially up till Christmas to move the country into the traffic light framework if we were following their health advice exactly as it was presented.

💬 Chris Bishop: What regions were listed in the preliminary public health advice he received on 24 November as being able to enter the COVID protection framework at green?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think the preliminary advice that I received suggested that all of the rest of the country outside of Auckland and Northland enter the framework at red. I’m happy to go back and check that, but I’m pretty certain it was that everything else would be at the orange level.

💬 SPEAKER: I think there might have been an error in the beginning of the answer. I’ll get the member to ask the question again.

💬 Chris Bishop: So the question was: what regions were listed in the preliminary public health advice he received on 24 November as being able to enter the protection framework at green?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: None. As I indicated—I might have got the colours mixed up there in my previous answer—but the preliminary advice, if I recall correctly, was for Auckland and Northland to be at red and the rest of the country to be at orange, but I’ll have to go back and check. I’m pretty sure the advice he was referring to wasn’t advice to me; it was advice from the public health unit to the director-general.

💬 Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister confirm that the statements made by Dr Bloomfield to the Waitangi Tribunal recently were what was then presented in his advice to Cabinet—that, notably, our preliminary view was that the various regions could enter into the CPF on green; however, given our assessment committee’s concerns about the number of areas with low vaccination status, particularly for Māori, and current active cases in several DHBs were not just limited to Auckland metro DHB, this preliminary view was adjusted; the final recommendation was that regions should be placed at orange, except for Auckland and Northland, which was then what was presented to Cabinet?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes.

💬 Chris Bishop: Isn’t it the case that Dr Bloomfield has provided an affidavit to the Waitangi Tribunal that says, “Our preliminary view was that various regions could enter into the COVID protection framework on green.”, and what were those regions?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member has a—I think the Prime Minister has just quoted directly from the advice that Dr Bloomfield has provided in his affidavit to the Waitangi Tribunal, which made it clear that, in considering the public health position and in considering what advice to provide to Cabinet, the public health officials weighed up a number of factors, and the ultimate advice that was presented to the Cabinet is as I’ve set out.

💬 Chris Bishop: Is he aware of what the preliminary advice said in relation to what regions could enter at green; and if he is aware, what are those regions?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m pretty sure the member is referring to the public health advice that was provided from the public health team to Dr Bloomfield, not advice that was provided to the Cabinet.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question is very specific, and we’ve just had a back and forth around the fact that there was a preliminary view that was not the final view that went to the Minister, but there was a preliminary view that—and I’ve asked the Minister whether or not he’s aware of what the preliminary view was, and if he is aware, what exactly the details of that are. He’s answering about the final recommendation of public health advice. My question is about the preliminary view of the officials.

💬 SPEAKER: I think the Minister made it pretty clear that notwithstanding what that advice was, it wasn’t the advice that went to Cabinet.

💬 Chris Bishop: Does he know what the officials’ preliminary view was in relation to what regions could enter the protection framework at green?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Advice that the public health teams provided to Dr Bloomfield is, ultimately, a question for the public health officials and for Dr Bloomfield. I’m not privy to all of that advice, but I have had regular conversations with Dr Bloomfield during that time about the advice that he was receiving.

💬 SPEAKER: No—no, it was a very narrow question that time. Is the member aware of the regions?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I can’t recall the exact conversations—

💬 Chris Bishop: Oh, come on.

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —that I had with Dr Bloomfield. He was sharing with me—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will sit down. If you’re going to yell over the top, that’s the end of it.

💬 Chris Bishop: Hang on. Mr Speaker, it was an exclamation of somewhat disbelief—

💬 SPEAKER: And I was assisting the member to get an answer, and he and a number of colleagues didn’t want to hear it.

Question No. 10—Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities

10. to the Minister for Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities: What actions has the Government taken to support our ethnic communities to get the COVID-19 vaccine?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This Government is committed to ensuring that everyone in New Zealand is supported to access the COVID-19 vaccination. We know that communities access information differently, have varied needs, and that a one-size-fits-all approach rarely works. So, amongst other actions, the Government established two funds that support ethnic communities to both access information and the vaccination itself in ways that are relevant to them. We established the Vaccine Uptake Fund to provide support for activities aimed at increasing vaccination, particularly in our harder to reach ethnic communities, and that has so far been accessed by 51 groups. This is in addition to the ethnic communities communications fund, which supported 71 initiatives aimed at eliminating barriers and countering misinformation faced by our ethnic communities.

💬 Vanushi Walters: Why is this funding important?

💬 Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Our ethnic communities make up a significant proportion of New Zealand’s population—close to 20 percent, to be precise. Since we know that getting vaccinated is the best way to protect ourselves and others, it’s important that we support communities to get the information they need to get the vaccination. It’s also important that we support communities to lead those efforts, as they are best placed to be able to access harder to reach groups within their own communities. Our ethnic communities have told us that, for example, being able to provide things like transport, interpreters, and collateral in their own languages makes a real difference in order for them to be able to organise vaccine drives that are culturally appropriate. That’s why we created those funds, to be able to support community organisations directly with this. I want to acknowledge that vaccination rates are high across ethnic communities as a whole, but that doesn’t mean that our work is done. We will continue to support everyone who is eligible to access the vaccine.

💬 SPEAKER: Right, I’m going to allow another supplementary, but the answer must be much shorter than those two.

💬 Vanushi Walters: What other work has been under way to support our ethnic communities to get vaccinated?

💬 Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: The Ministry for Ethnic Communities has been working closely with key stakeholders in communities, DHBs, and in the public sector to boost vaccination rates. Amongst other things, they’ve held information sessions and Zui with communities across the country, produced over 40 videos in over 20 languages with specific information, hosted vaccination days for ethnic youth, and also connected communities with relevant DHBs to help them organise over 16 tailored vaccination drives. I’m incredibly proud of a huge amount of work that has gone into this—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! No, we can tell the Minister’s proud, but—No. 11, Simeon Brown.

Question No. 11—Public Service

11. to the Minister for the Public Service: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions regarding pay and workforce expectations for the public sector?

Yes, in the context in which they occurred.

💬 Simeon Brown: Does the Minister believe the public is getting value for money with a 49 percent increase in taxpayer funding for civil servants in Wellington since 2017 when Kiwis are facing worse outcomes in education, hospital wait times, and police response times?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m going to give the member a chance to rephrase it in two ways. One, to tie it to the primary question—the statements and the actions of the Minister—and secondly, to drop the British term “civil servants”. We don’t have civil servants in New Zealand.

💬 Simeon Brown: Does the Minister stand by his statement in May regarding pay and workforce expectations and the need for value for money when there has been a 49 percent increase in taxpayer funding for public servants in Wellington since 2017 when Kiwis are facing worse outcomes in education, hospital wait times, and police response times?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: First of all, I think the member confuses where those public servants are based and the nature of the work that they are undertaking. Not all of those public servants are based in Wellington. In fact, a large number of them are spread throughout the country. It includes greater front-line staff for the Ministry of Education, for example, who provide direct support to schools and to children to improve educational outcomes that he has just mentioned. It does include the people working for Ministry of Social Development and the IRD, providing, amongst other things, the wage subsidy, which has kept the economy alive over the last 18 months. It includes extra people working at Oranga Tamariki to provide support and care to some of our most vulnerable children and families. The list of those examples could go on. The members opposite may want to call them bureaucrats; we call them public servants.

💬 Simeon Brown: How many of the 14,000 additional public sector employees that have been employed since 2017 are employed directly as part of the COVID response, and isn’t it true that the headcount had already increased by 5,000 before COVID hit?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It depends, ultimately, how you calculate that. Somewhere between 40 percent to half of the overall number accounts for response to COVID. So that includes people working in things like managed isolation and quarantine, it includes extra people working at the border, the people running the vaccination campaign, the people doing contact tracing, the people managing testing, the people delivering the wage subsidy, and all of those other COVID-19 directly related initiatives. There’s a mix of permanent and short-term staffing involved in those numbers.

💬 Simeon Brown: Why did the Government hire over 500 new public service managers in the last year but not invest in adding ICU beds until month 21 of the pandemic?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, the latter part of the member’s question is absolutely wrong. In terms of the first part of the question, as I’ve indicated, the increased number of public servants has been very closely connected to many aspects of our overall COVID-19 response. For example, to have managed isolation facilities across the country, we need people to manage them.

💬 Simeon Brown: How does the almost doubling of the number of public service employees earning over $400,000 per year show “pay restraint” as required by the Public Service Commissioner’s guidance to Public Service agencies in 2020?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think one of the things we need to do is recognise that the nature of some of the roles being undertaken has changed and that we are ultimately recruiting in a competitive market for those people at senior levels of the Public Service.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: You don’t want to bag someone’s success. They’ve worked hard.

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: But I do welcome—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! Look, I don’t know what, sort of—it’s boys’ day out or something. Can the pair of you just—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: He provoked me.

💬 Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: That was yesterday.

💬 SPEAKER: No, no, no. Well, I don’t need the Prime Minister to help either. I could get in trouble if I speculated at what was causing it, and I’ll stop, but the finance spokespeople are both to stay silent until the end of question time.

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course, what the member misses in his question is that the overall rate of pay for chief executives, for example, at the top of the Public Service has actually decreased under this Government.

Question No. 12—Prevention of Family Violence and Sexual Violence

12. to the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence: What is she doing to support the UN’s Orange the World campaign?

I thank the member for the question. Orange the World is an international campaign that represents 16 days of activism against violence against women and girls, and I congratulate members across the House today for wearing orange in support of that day. It started about 30 years ago in 1991, and this struggle, this movement, has been happening for so long, driven by so many women and across so many communities. Yesterday, I was proud to launch Te Aorerekura, our national strategy and action plan to eliminate family violence and sexual violence. For the first time ever, we are working across Government, communities, and tangata whenua to address violence. This is an important step towards ensuring the wellbeing of all people, including women and girls. We not only have a strategy; we have 40 actions where we have committed as a Government, which will take us through the next two years as a starting point, and, might I say, those are 40 actions on top of business as usual. Te Aorerekura is the biggest breakthrough we have seen in addressing violence because it elevates the Government’s accountability all across our agencies and our commitment to do things differently.

💬 Ingrid Leary: What changes does she expect to see from the Te Aorerekura action plan?

💬 Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Part of the Government being accountable for this work is knowing what this will mean to people in their everyday lives. We heard clearly from the community that we need to achieve both outcomes for people but also changes to the system so that we stop re-traumatising those who need our support. Over time, for example, we expect to see that children and young people understand healthy relationships, how to seek help, and that they can access tailored services. We expect to see that those that use violence are accountable and supported to change their behaviour and address past trauma. Finally, in terms of the system change, we absolutely must see that tangata whenua, Pacific peoples, ethnic peoples, LGBTQIA+ communities, older people, male survivors, and disabled communities can access safe and tailored services that uphold who they are.

💬 Hon Jan Tinetti: How will Te Aorerekura improve the lives of women and girls in New Zealand?

💬 Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Firstly, I want to be very clear that no wahine or kōtiro should live in fear of gender-based violence. Te Aorerekura completely acknowledges the gendered nature of family violence and sexual violence, and it includes a broad understanding of who is impacted by it and who uses these forms of violence—go to page 10, for anyone who wants to have a look. Violence against women and children is widespread in Aotearoa. It is unacceptable—full stop. Gender inequities and sexism in our society and the upholding of patriarchal systems, men’s dominance, entitlement, and physical and sexual aggression mean that more men are more likely to use violence. We must accept and better understand the different ways violence is perpetuated and how it impacts differently across different communities. This is so important. In fact, this is the most important thing when we develop effective responses, healing, and prevention, and that is exactly what Te Aorerekura does. Finally, I want to acknowledge that member, Minister Tinetti, for her leadership and commitment to this work, and to acknowledge the important role the Ministry for Women plays in the Public Service, ensuring women and girls are visible and considered in Government policy.