Oral Questions

1. to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Why did he introduce the Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill and the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua Claims Settlement Bill, when in November 2021 the Waitangi Tribunal called for the Crown to postpone the introduction of the settlement legislation and allow the litigation in front of the Supreme Court to take its course?

I made the decision to introduce the bills because having taken the iwi 30 years to achieve a signed deed of settlement, during which they sustained many challenges, including litigation, over the last four years, it was time to honour the agreement made. In the process to reach agreement for redress over Treaty breaches, in this case Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, the Crown must balance a range of interests, which, in this case, included those of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua in achieving a long-awaited settlement, those of Rangitāne who cannot get some settlement redress until legislation is passed, and the burden of litigation that has been carried by Raukawa in defending their Treaty settlement interests and their mana whenua.

The decision was very carefully weighed. I took time to consider the most recent tribunal decision as well as the recent High Court decisions; I met with all interested parties, and I understand their positions. I weighed the fact that the Supreme Court proceedings will not be the end of this matter, and it is likely that Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua and Ngāti Rangitāne would be waiting another 10 years with no certainty the result would be materially different for them than it is now. Iwi would continue to miss out on the economic benefit of their settlement if the legislation is not progressed. Taking into account all the circumstances, I considered that the balance was in favour of ending further delay and bringing the benefits of redress to all of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua.

💬 Jan Logie: Why does the Minister believe he is a better judge of the fairness of the process than the Waitangi Tribunal, an expert body with a more-than-20-year relationship with the hapū involved in this settlement and these claims?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Waitangi Tribunal has been seized of issues for Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua for some years. It made some decisions back in 2017 that let to further engagement, further discussion, further review. It made an interesting point, or proposition, in one of its more recent decisions—I’m talking about the tribunal now—that suggested, in relation to the mandate held by the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua Settlement Trust, that it may not have had a mandate for one of the iwi that it was representing, Ngāi Tūmapūhia, and it should have known that because Ngāi Tūmapūhia had been part of litigation challenging the mandate—notwithstanding earlier findings of the tribunal that that only way to deal with mandate is to go through the agreed process for withdrawing mandate. On balance, considering the tribunal’s decision, considering the extra effort that went in and the improved package that was agreed to with the settlement trust, and having heard from all the parties and seeing the risk of further delay, I made the judgment that it was time to bring the legislation to the House.

💬 Jan Logie: Why has the Minister introduced legislation that brings to an end litigation in which the Crown is the defendant and where the Waitangi Tribunal has said that proceeding to legislate would be a breach of the Treaty?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: This is the tribunal that four years ago said that the settlement trust’s mandate was intact and should be respected and, then, four years later without explaining why, considered that the mandate was somehow not properly formed. So there are issues about the consistency of decision making by the tribunal. But, in the end, bringing the legislation to the House does not bring litigation to an end, and in fact, the Supreme Court is, this very day, hearing from parties relating to this particular settlement. There are points of law that the Supreme Court can consider and, as I understand it, is considering, but it means that those who come under the mandate represented by the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua Settlement Trust can get on and realise the benefits of the agreement they have reached with the Crown.

💬 Jan Logie: What is the Minister’s response to the letter from the Federation of Māori Authorities and the New Zealand Māori Council informing the Government that if it continues with this legislation without waiting for resolution of the application before the Supreme Court, they will consider the 1987 lands and 1989 forestry agreements between the federation, council, and Crown to have been repudiated?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: My response is that neither of those bodies understand the detail of the agreements reached with Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, and in fact, the return of Crown forest land to that settlement trust was the commitment by that settlement trust to ensure that one of the parties that has a specific claim on a very specific part of the Ngāumu Forest land can participate and exercise their kaitiaki rights, and I’m confident that the settlement trust will forge a strong relationship with that grouping to ensure that their interests and rights over that part of the Ngāumu Forest are observed. The spirit and letter of the pieces of legislation that the Federation of Māori Authorities and the New Zealand Māori Council refer to are being honoured.

💬 Jan Logie: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the letter from the federation and the Māori Council.

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

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

💬 Jan Logie: Is the Crown extinguishing rights that exist in law to prevent a larger financial cost to the Crown?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I think I indicated in my answer to the primary question, the Crown acts in a way that is fair to all parties with an interest in a particular matter. It’s important, I think, for this House to know that there are parties who have not played a single part in putting the particular settlement agreement together that have a stake in this, and that is Ngāti Raukawa and, to a lesser extent, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, whose mana whenua was, in a sense, under attack through a claim on the Pouākani lands around Mangakino because—and, in fact, as the High Court noted that itself, the tribunal had failed to recognise, was inconsistent with the tikanga that ought to be applied when it comes to a Māori organisation claiming rights and interests in land that is not in their rohe. I think, all the way through, the way the Crown has approached this is to make sure that all those with an interest not only in the settlement but in the peripheral issues to it are treated properly and fairly and have done. Now Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua and their people can realise the benefits of their agreement.

💬 Jan Logie: Prior to this year, has any Government ever introduced legislation the week before a Supreme Court hearing which extinguishes the rights of the appellants before the court?

💬 SPEAKER: I’ll let the Minister answer it. I’m not sure that he has responsibility for it.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I want to just point out to the House that it is not correct to say that the litigation rights of any party have been extinguished. The Supreme Court is continuing to hear matters raised and the appeals raised by the Wairarapa Moana Incorporation and other parties. There are points of law that it can consider, and it is considering those.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, I stand by this Government’s economic plan to build a higher wage, low-carbon economy that provides economic security in good times and bad. My statement to Parliament set out our work to increase the value of our exports, develop new markets, and invest in skills, new research and technology, and modern infrastructure to drive productivity, reduce emissions, and increase wages. We will do this while continuing our balanced and disciplined approach to managing the Government’s accounts. We are forecast to achieve a surplus in 2023-24—three years earlier than was forecast in Budget 2021 and, I might add, significantly faster than the Opposition achieved post the global financial crisis.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that when prices grow twice as fast as wages for an entire year, real incomes are going backwards, meaning average Kiwi families are getting poorer under her Government?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I reject the premise of that question, because if we track back from 2018, the average annual rate of people’s wages, we were looking more at 3.5 percent relative to inflation, which has been sitting on average at 2.2 percent. What we have now is not something New Zealand is experiencing alone: there is an international phenomenon of countries experiencing high rates of inflation. We join the likes of the UK and the United States, and we also join them for similar reasons: each are identifying issues around, for instance, building more housing and, particularly, the cost increase in fuel prices. This is not something that people are forecasting to endure but we absolutely accept that it is having an impact on consumers.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she agree that when rents are up $125 per week—or $6,500 per year—that we have a cost of living crisis in New Zealand?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I refer the member back to my answer, giving the context from 2018 to now, and the period that we’re in presently. I also refer the member back to the fact that what we’re actually experiencing in New Zealand has been a long-term housing crisis we inherited and are working very hard to turn around, and one of the most significant contributions we can make to turning that around is to growing housing supply. Now, I listened carefully yesterday to the member’s statement in this House and I did not hear one idea on how we are to turn around the housing crisis, yet on this side of the House, we have extended the brightline test, we have dealt with interest deductibility, we are growing the number of public and transitional housing places to over 8,000 already and another 2,000 this year. We have stopped letting fees, we have reduced the number of increases a renter experiences to once a year, we are reforming the Resource Management Act, and in the meantime expediting housing projects that will make a difference to housing supply, and, as a result, we have the highest number of consents on record. This is a Government that is progressing housing solutions. I hear nothing from that side of the House.

💬 David Seymour: Was the Prime Minister listening carefully to the Opposition for housing policy ideas because none of hers have worked since house prices went up $387,000, or 58 percent, on her watch?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I was listening carefully to see whether or not we had, in an Opposition, the persistent idea of actually not acknowledging a housing crisis, first of all, and doing absolutely nothing except selling public housing stock.

💬 Christopher Luxon: What does she say to Kiwis who are struggling to put food on the table when food price increases are the highest in a decade—so a block of cheese is $17 and 2 litres of milk is almost $5?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: To our families in New Zealand, I’d say that we are the Government that, of course, has increased things like Working for Families and of course already committed that they will see another increase in Working for Families this year of, on average, $20 a week, that we are a Government that will continue to see the increase in the minimum wage, when that leader disputes that the minimum wage should be increasing at all, and that we are a Government that are committed, for instance, to ensure that working people can retire at a certain age, when on that side they want to see working people working longer and harder. This is a Government that is focused on ensuring that we support working families and New Zealanders; on that side of the House I see no sign of that.

💬 Christopher Luxon: How much of the record 5.9 percent inflation does she believe is a result of Government spending?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, I note that on that side of the House, the member when asked that question himself pointed to two policies: cameras on boats—a policy I notice the National Party used to support—for fisheries and consultants for three waters. It won’t be a surprise to this House that I disagree with that assertion and I disagree that things like the wage subsidy, resurgence support, and support for small businesses have been the driver of inflation. Instead, I point to what is actually on record, out of Stats New Zealand and out of Australia and the UK, which is pointing to supply constraints and issues like fuel costs.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Does she stand by the statement of her Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education) that “I will never agree to a Māori education authority.”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I acknowledge, first of all, all the work that our Minister has done in the area of ensuring that we improve the education outcomes for Māori students, whether they’re in kura or whether they’re in mainstream education, that we more broadly see the teaching of te reo, that we more broadly see the teaching of history in schools, and that we lift educational attainment for all our students, and I support his work on that.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: How is it appropriate for a Minister of the Crown to rule out a Māori education authority when Te Rūnanga nui o Ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori have a claim before the Waitangi Tribunal?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think the Minister—what he has not ruled out is his aspiration that all of our students, all of our Māori students, have the very best education possible and that is his focus.

💬 Hon Kelvin Davis: Does she agree that a Māori education authority should actually apply to 100 percent of Māori tamariki, not 5 percent of Māori tamariki, as is proposed by Te Rūnanga nui o Ngā Kura Kaupapa?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member will well know that I support the work that the Associate Minister is doing, because he is the one that has direct experience within our education system and, more importantly, teaching our tamariki. So I back him 100 percent.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How does the Prime Minister reconcile her comments that the Government is “pulling all the levers on housing affordability” with her statements yesterday: “We are not considering rent controls, we are not introducing rent controls, we are not planning to use rent controls.”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because we are pulling those levers, and the member will have heard me list in this House. Everything, for instance, around reforming interest deductibility, which we have seen the extension of that brightline test, which we’re already seeing in the mortgage data, is contributing to the fact that there are more first-home buyers now in the market. And investors now, in terms of their take-up of mortgages, are down at around 16 percent. At the same time, we have to make sure that rental properties are available. We are doing all we can, though, to make sure that we have a rental sector that is affordable and where we have more long-term stable tenancy for our renters.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she accept any responsibility for the skyrocketing cost of living in New Zealand?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Here I refer again to the international evidence. So, again, when the member was asked the question of the examples where he thought the Government was responsible, I can only again reflect that he replied: cameras on boats and consultants for three waters were the Government’s contribution to inflation. I disagree. The Australian Bureau of Statistics noted that there it was high levels of building construction activity and higher global oil prices. The UK Office for National Statistics: it came from housing and motor fuels. The US Bureau of Statistics—again, pointing to inflation being caused by gasoline prices, which were up 49.6 percent. I reflect on what we are seeing globally: we’re seeing the same trends overseas that we are seeing here in New Zealand.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that under this Labour Government people are working harder but they are not getting ahead; they’re going backwards because of a cost of living crisis driven by her Government’s economic mismanagement?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I reject the premise of the member’s question, and, again, no one is denying that internationally we are seeing increases in inflation due to all of the reasons that I’ve outlined. But I again refer back that since 2018, wages have outstripped inflation in this country, and I also point to the fact that if we had that party in office, we would have a Government that did not believe in, for instance, lifting the wages of our lowest-income New Zealanders and supporting families to get ahead—quite the opposite to what you’ve seen on this side.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Why is it that the Government rightfully accepted the need for a Māori Health Authority to deal with persistent inequalities, inequities, in a racist system and why can’t it do the same for an education system with a Māori education authority?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: You know, our view is that we’ll do what works. We know that there is a need to make progress in both those areas, but our view is that in order to make the gains we need in Māori healthcare, we do need to make sure that we’re working much more in partnership to determine the way that services are delivered, and the Māori Health Authority takes a real leadership role there. But, at the same time, we’re also strengthening the role and availability of kura, and so it’s not that you necessarily need to have these two independent authorities in order to drive those outcomes; it is, though, about doing things differently and we’re doing that in both areas.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Government intend to increase the rate of GST, as the Government of the day did last time there was a spike in the cost of living in New Zealand?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would note that that was a period in which we saw a significant increase in the cost of living, but I again would add that alongside the credibility gap of being lectured by a Leader of the Opposition on the cost of living when he does not believe in increases to the minimum wage.

Question No. 3—Finance

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

Mr Speaker—yep, I’ll go for it. The strength of the jobs market is continuing to support the New Zealand economy. Last week, Statistics New Zealand reported that the unemployment rate fell from 3.3 percent in the September quarter to a record low of 3.2 percent in the December quarter, the number of unemployed fell by 5,000 to 93,000, and the unemployment rate is 34 percent lower than a year ago and 14 percent below where it was in the pre-COVID December 2019 quarter. On comparable measures, New Zealand’s unemployment rate, at 3.2 percent, stands against 4.6 percent in Australia, 4.1 percent in the UK, 4.2 percent in the US, 6.2 percent in Canada, and the OECD average of 5.5 percent. The robust jobs market shows that the Government’s actions in response to COVID-19 to protect lives and livelihoods has proven to be the best economic approach as well as the best health approach.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What did the report say on growth in employment?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The data also shows that the economy continued to add jobs, with 27,700 more people in work than in the September quarter, with more young people in work in particular. Hours worked rebounded 7.6 percent as restrictions in response to the Delta outbreak were eased over the quarter. The total number of people in work is now 117,300 above where it was in the pre-COVID December 2019 quarter. Kiwibank’s economist noted that there was no denying the strength of the labour market in this report, pointing out, “Jobs are plentiful, unemployment is at a new record low, and wages are rising.”

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

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government’s health-led approach to the COVID-19 pandemic and support for the economy has been reflected in the Crown financial accounts released in late January. For the six months to the end of September, core Crown tax revenue was $0.3 billion above that forecast in the December half-year update, at $41.1 billion. This was largely driven by better than expected corporate profits. The operating balance before gains and losses was a deficit of $8.4 billion, $1.2 billion better than forecast. This shows the resilience of the economy as restrictions triggered by the pandemic meant that we did have to put more support in to protect lives and livelihoods. I note that net core Crown debt stood at 34.5 percent of GDP, $0.6 billion less than had been predicted, and significantly below the countries with which we compare ourselves.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why, then, with such low unemployment and labour shortages are there 90,000 more people on a benefit today than when Labour took power?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As has been stated many times in this House, the two figures are not directly comparable. What we do know is that on a consistent measure of unemployment that has been in place since 1987, we have the lowest rate that we have ever had. What I did hear in this House yesterday was the Leader of the Opposition, whose only solution I could make out from his speech was that he wanted unemployment to rise. That’s the old National Party, and it’s still here.

Question No. 4—Housing

4. to the Minister of Housing: By what amount, if any, have both the median rent and the demand for social housing increased since the Government announced its housing package in March 2021?

The Government’s March 2021 housing package included a range of demand and supply side measures to increase the supply of housing. This was to address a housing crisis that was decades in the making. On the supply side, we simply weren’t building enough houses—which has been a major driver of increasing rents. According to Stats New Zealand, median rent increased 4.7 percent between March 2021 and December 2021. And the Housing Register has increased by 1,838 applications between March 2021 and December 2021. I do, however, note for the member that there is a wide regional variation in the rent increases we have seen. For example, in Auckland, where we have seen a strong increase in supply, rents were limited to a 2.4 percent increase. This shows that where we increase supply, there will be more moderate rent increases. We know that this is a housing crisis that cannot be solved overnight, but we are continuing to see some of the initial green shoots of positive change from our Government’s housing policies. But we know there is more work to do and we’ll continue taking action to get more houses built.

💬 Nicola Willis: Can she confirm that according to the most recent Government rental data, in the past year, median weekly rents have increased by $50—the biggest annual increase since records began?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I indicated in the answer to the primary question, when we look at the Stats New Zealand figures—which are the figures that I will look at—we saw, for the period that the member is talking about between March and December of last year, a 4.7 percent median increase. But if we are to truly understand where the solutions to fixing our housing crisis lie, we have to look at the regional variation, and, where we can see where more supply is coming on, such as in Auckland, that we are holding rental increases to 2.4 percent. We cannot ignore that.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does she recall receiving advice from housing officials in January last year, warning that the Government’s proposed housing tax changes “could have a negative impact on renters, particularly those on lower incomes”; and does she regret the impact her policies are having on renters?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I remember receiving the advice on 22 December very well, because it was put in my summer reading bag. This was advice that was at the initial stages of policy development, that pointed out that if we did not do something to incentivise the bringing on of new supply of housing, then we could possibly see an increase in rent. Of course, as the package announced in March 2021 showed, our Government did take heed of that advice and put in place mitigations by putting in place a 20-year exemption for new-build rental properties into that. So I recall it very well. I also recall myself and the Minister of Finance discussing it fully, along with our Cabinet colleagues, to come up with real solutions to a housing crisis.

💬 Nicola Willis: Is it the Minister’s position that the Government’s housing package in March has been effective when renters are now paying $50 more a week for their housing, and does she think that is acceptable?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I indicated in the answer to the primary question, we are beginning to see the green shoots of the Government’s action in the area of housing. When we look at the evidence and where we can see that there were rental increases constrained to 2.4 percent in Auckland over the period under question, compared to some parts of the North Island that had 8 percent increases, we can see that bringing on new supply is absolutely critical to a Government addressing the housing crisis, and that is what we are doing. It is why we geared aspects of the March package towards ensuring that we could bring on supply in places other than metropolitan centres. It is exactly what the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund is about. I encourage the member to look at the evidence rather than the soundbites.

💬 Nicola Willis: Was the Associate Minister of Housing correct when she stated last week that in response to rent increases, “There are a whole lot of proposals that are being floated at the moment, including things like rent control and indexation … There is nothing off the table.”; and, if so, why did the Prime Minister state yesterday, “We are not considering rent controls.”?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Our Cabinet consistently looks at what we can do to help people who are renting, whether that be by incentivising the bringing on of new supply of housing, because we do not want mum and dad property investors competing with their kids in the suburbs; we actually want property investors and developers to be part of solving the housing crisis. So both the Prime Minister and the Associate Minister of Housing were absolutely correct that we continually do what we can to aid renters. But we are an evidence-driven Government, and when we look at the evidence that the best way to control rent is to bring on the supply of new housing, we look at that 2.4 percent increase in Auckland—that is where we’re addressing our energy.

Question No. 5—COVID-19 Response

My question is to the Minister for COVID-19 Response and asks—[Interruption]

Order! I’m going to give a little bit of development feedback to the member, and indicate that if she does that again, her colleagues will lose supplementaries.

5. to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What will be the focus for the Government’s response to COVID-19 in 2022?

The year 2022 represents the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic, and we begin this year with a plan to keep us as safe as possible and to keep the country moving forward. Our guiding principle for the last two years has been to protect the lives and livelihoods of New Zealanders, and that’s what we’ve done. Our confirmed cases, our hospitalisations, and our deaths have been the lowest in the OECD for the past two years. Our goal is to continue this trend. Vaccination will continue to be one of our greatest defences against the virus, and the roll-out of the booster and paediatric campaigns will be essential in obtaining the overall high rates of vaccination across all population groups but particularly our elderly, our immunocompromised, and others who are at risk. As we build our collective immunisation, we will be commencing our reconnection with the rest of the world.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: How will boosters be used in the roll-out of New Zealand’s immunisation programme?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Boosters are essential. Cabinet recently considered the advice of the Director-General of Health and the COVID-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group, and on the basis of that advice reduced the interval between a person’s primary vaccination course—their first and their second dose—and their booster dose from four months to three months. As of today, over 1.6 million Kiwis have had their booster dose. That’s over half of the New Zealanders who are eligible as of today. Boosters are our strongest weapon at this point. Every booster dose that is delivered strengthens our collective immunity and takes pressure off our health system. So to every New Zealander: if you are eligible, please do go and get boosted today. It is the most significant thing that you can do to protect your family, your friends, and those hard-working doctors, nurses, paramedics, and health workers that we all rely on.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: What progress has been made to date on the vaccination of New Zealand children under 12 years of age?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Roughly, 476,000 young New Zealanders between the ages of five and 11 are eligible to get their first dose. Over 200,000 of those tamariki have so far received their first dose. As we’ve seen to date, the virus can be unpredictable. While COVID-19 does sometimes have milder effects in children, with symptoms more similar to a cold, some children do become severely ill and require hospitalisation. In the most recent outbreak, 24 percent of our cases have been aged under 11, so the Government is strongly encouraging parents to have their children vaccinated against COVID-19.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: What impact will the Government’s response to COVID-19 have on our borders?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The New Zealand border will reopen for vaccinated New Zealanders and other currently eligible travellers from Australia at 11.59 p.m. on 27 February. It will open for the same groups from the rest of the world two weeks later on 13 March. The Government’s reconnecting plan will see all New Zealanders and key visa holders able to start to enter the country over the coming three months. That will help to assist with our economic recovery and, of course, help to address some immediate workforce shortages. Having managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) for every traveller coming into the country was a temporary setting when we had no other forms of protection against the virus. New Zealanders need to reconnect with the world and with one another, families and friends need to reunite, our businesses need skills to grow, and exporters need to travel to make new connections. So we’ve developed a very careful plan that replaces MIQ for the vast majority of travellers whilst also ensuring that we maintain ongoing measures to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in our community from recent arrivals.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

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

Yes. In particular, I stand by this Government’s actions to reconnect New Zealanders to the world, beginning at 11.59 p.m. on 27 February with New Zealanders and other eligible travellers from Australia. Our plan will see all New Zealanders and key visa holders able to enter the country without managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) over the next three months to reconnect families, reconnect businesses, and reconnect us to visitors. We begin to reopen in the context of high vaccination levels, our booster and paediatric vaccine campaign, and public health measures designed to protect us from the worst of Omicron. MIQ has been invaluable in protecting New Zealand from the worst of COVID, but it has not been without heartache and has been one of the hardest parts of the pandemic, but it’s also helped put us in a position to now move forward together safely.

💬 David Seymour: Why does the New Zealand tourism industry have to wait until the end of this year, nearly, to reconnect with the world when Australia’s tourism industry will be welcoming tourists by the end of this month?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That’s actually not correct. The first step for reopening to tourists is in July, and we’ve also really predicated that date as being our maximum; it’s by July. Our expectation is that, in line with the advice from our experts, when we do see higher case numbers in New Zealand, the additional impact of seeding at our border is lessened. So we do expect that there is every chance that that date will come forward. That’s the date that Australians are able to re-enter; of course, progressively, we move through with visa-waiver countries and then finish with those requiring visas, and that’s at October.

💬 David Seymour: Does she stand by the answer she gave to a question about whether Government spending has led to higher inflation, “I refute that. I absolutely refute that.”, and if she was right, was Treasury wrong to advise the finance Minister that “Increases in fiscal stimulus … have exerted inflationary pressures”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What you’ll have seen from my answers in their entirety is that the vast majority of inflationary pressures are coming from, as I’ve said—and this has been noticed by Stats New Zealand—fuel prices and building and construction. Some of that is, of course, exacerbated by supply constraints and supply chain issues. As you will have seen from my answers, that is the case in other countries also—the likes of Australia, the US, and the UK; their bureaux of statistics all pointing to the same inflationary pressures.

💬 David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister point New Zealanders to one country registering higher inflation than New Zealand that we’d like to be compared with, excluding the United States, which was the only country in the OECD that had a bigger Government spend-up through COVID?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I take from the premise of the member’s question that he disagrees with the Government support that has been put in place over the course of the pandemic. That’s all that I can conclude. If the member is precluding, for instance, as he said, a country that has put investment into their COVID recovery, because I would have, of course, named the United States at 7 percent. Yes, we have invested Government spending to ensure that we could deliver a wage subsidy, which kept people connected to their jobs and contributed to a 3.2 percent unemployment rate. We invested in the Resurgence Support Payment and we invested in support specifically for small business. Now, if the member disagrees with those initiatives, it is his prerogative, but on this side of the House we stand by them.

💬 David Seymour: So are New Zealanders to take it their Prime Minister can’t name another country in the world with higher inflation that we’d like to compare ourselves with?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The countries that we most often compare ourselves to, of course—as the member well knows, New Zealand is sitting at 5.9 percent. The UK is sitting at 5.4 percent, Germany at 5.3 percent, Canada at 4.8 percent, and the United States at 7 percent. The point is that these countries are all experiencing similar impacts, and that is because most of the contributing factors towards that are being internationally driven.

💬 David Seymour: Can she give New Zealanders some hope of getting their way of life back by promising to lift all COVID-19 restrictions this calendar year, and if not, why not?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We don’t wish to have restrictions in place longer than they are required. Of course, we have only used them in order to make sure that we are able to enjoy a way of life that feels like it has some kind of normality. The fact that we have now these lower levels of restrictions is because we have high rates of vaccination. It’s because New Zealanders have gone out and supported the vaccination campaign that we now have some lower restrictions that even other countries that have Omicron currently have. When we are able to, we will even remove those, because our constant drive is to have as much normality as possible whilst also keeping one another safe.

💬 David Seymour: How does she explain to New Zealanders—94 percent have done their bit, gone out, got double vaccinated, while we still have some of the most stringent restrictions on our border and on our way of life of any country outside Communist China?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would reject that. For instance, there are some countries that have had stay at home orders for the better part of two years consistently. We have not had that. We’ve even now, you’ll see that we’ve got—yes, we have gathering restrictions, but otherwise businesses are able to open, they are able to trade, and that is precisely because of the vaccination rates and because we are using targeted restrictions that we know make a difference on Omicron. The member may have missed this, but relative to other countries, we’ve had some of the best outcomes in the world. Has it come with New Zealanders having to make sacrifices? Yes—but name a country who hasn’t and has still come out with some of the lowest hospitalisations, death rates, and still maintained economic growth and low unemployment. I stand by our COVID response.

Question No. 7—Finance

7. to the Minister of Finance: Does he accept that with inflation of 5.9 per cent and a wage rate increase of 2.6 per cent for 2021, real incomes for New Zealanders are going backwards; if so, what will he do about it?

I do not accept the member’s use of the labour cost index is an accurate reflection of how New Zealand’s wages have risen, and therefore I do not accept the conclusion that he draws. In fact, under this Government, average, ordinary-time, hourly earnings—money in people’s pocket—has risen, on average, by 3.5 percent a year, while inflation has averaged 2.2 percent a year.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he then accept the Council of Trade Unions survey of workers, out at the end of last year, which found that those who believe they are worse off is significantly higher now than the year before with 70 percent of workers saying their pay isn’t keeping up with the cost of living?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I look forward to the member’s ongoing endorsement of the Council of Trade Unions’ statements, which include such things as lifting the minimum wage, an exercise that would help people meet increasing costs of living. I stand by the statistics I used in my primary answer.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Will he accept the findings of the Westpac McDermott Miller Employment Confidence Index, again, at the end of last year, which found that more New Zealanders are pessimistic about the economic environment and report that their personal circumstances are worse than the year before, for reasons including high inflation and rising interest rates?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I—and along with, I imagine, the member, and everyone else in this House—understand the impact that COVID-19 has had on New Zealand and New Zealanders. That survey was taken at the end of a period of time where there were restrictions in the New Zealand economy that have been difficult for many people. But when we take a look at New Zealand’s position overall, economically, we are doing well. Our very strong public health response has allowed the economy to rebound, such that the biggest issue being raised is the issue around the capacity of the economy to be able to deal with the growth that we have.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: When will he take action on the recommendation of the OECD, in their report out last week, where they say that the Government should “Withdraw fiscal stimulus rapidly to reduce the burden of macroeconomic stabilisation on monetary policy.”, or, in plain English, stop spending so much to ease pressure on high inflation and rising interest rates?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member will recall that we have made a decision, under the COVID-19 Protection Framework, that broad-based fiscal stimulus will not now take place. Unfortunately for the member, a number of his colleagues are continuing to call for that.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What part of the OECD’s call to “Withdraw fiscal stimulus” doesn’t he understand?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think the member might not have listened to my last answer. We have already said that across-the-board payments, such as the wage subsidy, wouldn’t be paid out under the COVID-19 Protection Framework. I do note—I do note—that in the National Party’s most recent plan, they called for the wage subsidy to be available at level 2 of the old framework. So the member needs to sort out what he actually believes.

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: In terms of the state of global economic variables impacting on inflation, what is he personally doing to solve congestion problems at US west coast ports, reopen port cities in China closed down by the Chinese Government due to COVID, or—

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

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he accept that it isn’t simply the OECD that’s calling for withdrawing fiscal stimulus, but that as interest.co.nz has recently reported out, “Bank economists are increasingly calling for the Government to start reining in spending to avoid fuelling higher inflation.”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I’ve already said, when it comes to across-the-board fiscal stimulus, that decision has already been made. I can only take from the member’s repeated questioning here that he believes that the Government should be cutting spending on things like health and our health response, or the other business supports that we’ve given. The member needs to front up—what’s he going to cut? Because he’s going to cut some spending, and it can’t just be cameras on boats; it’s got be to be something more, so it’ll be health, or it’ll be housing. That’s what the member has to front up to.

Question No. 8—Arts, Culture and Heritage

8. to the Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What recent announcements has she made about support for the arts and events sector?

Last week, I announced $121 million in further support for the arts and cultural sector. Key elements of the support we announced include: extending the Arts and Culture Event Support Scheme to 31 January 2023 and extending the key eligibility criteria; funding more direct support for individuals and organisations through the Cultural Sector Emergency Relief Fund; increasing the limit on funding for individual organisations from $100,000 to $300,000; a one-off grant of $5,000 to self-employed individuals or sole traders; and a boost in funding for the Screen Production Recovery Fund.

💬 Arena Williams: Why is this support important for the sector?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The arts and culture sector continues to be the engine of growth and innovation, helping to fuel the New Zealand economy. The sector contributes approximately $10.9 billion to the New Zealand economy, making up about 3.4 percent of GDP. The support we’ve announced follows ongoing engagement with the sector to understand their needs as the pandemic has progressed. It underlines the economic and social value of the arts, and ensures that we’re taking active steps towards protecting people’s jobs, incomes, and the livelihoods of those who make a living from delivering arts experiences and events.

💬 Arena Williams: What feedback has she seen on the announcement?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I’m pleased with the responses I’ve seen so far. The executive director of the Auckland Pride Festival, Max Tweedie, said, “This is a massive relief. The support scheme is a fantastic initiative that I’m excited all events across 2022 will be able to access. Fantastic to see the Government responding quickly to the needs of the arts sector.”

Question No. 9—Transport

9. to the Minister of Transport: Does he have confidence that he can deliver light rail in Auckland; if so, why?

Yes, I am confident that we will deliver light rail because the indicative business case has provided a sound analytical base on which to make informed decisions; because an enduring position and agreement between the Auckland Council, the Crown, and mana whenua has been established; because the governance arrangements that have been established will provide for appropriate Crown oversight and will incorporate the necessary skills to make the project a success; because Ministers have agreed to establish a competency-based board that brings the necessary skills together to deliver this city-shaping project. And, finally, I would say that I have great confidence because this Government is utterly determined that, after 50 years of successive local and central government administrations kicking this issue of a proper transport system for Auckland down the road, we have decided that it is time to act. I’d finish by quoting the comments of Infrastructure New Zealand on this issue, who said that, “We have to remember too, that what’s good for Auckland is good for New Zealand. We commend the Government for this approach, but we’re mindful that things can … change over successive terms of Government. We need to step aside from politics and just get this done.” We will, and I invite the Opposition to engage in a constructive and mature conversation about it.

💬 Simeon Brown: Does he stand by his statement: “Early works will commence by 2023.”; and, if so, how can New Zealanders believe him, given the Government promised this project would be completed by 2021, yet hasn’t even started construction?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: It’s well-known and understood by New Zealanders who have observed this project that there was not consensus between the parties of the Government in the previous term, and therefore it didn’t proceed. There is consensus between the parties of Government in this term of Government, and within one year of this Government recommencing this project an indicative business case has been produced, Cabinet has decided on the preferred option, and we have advice on the table that supports the fact that we will be able to begin those works in 2023.

💬 Simeon Brown: In what year will the final business case be completed by?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I trust that the member has read the indicative business case and the supporting documents that have been released. It is our expectation that a detailed business case will be before Cabinet by approximately the end of 2023.

💬 Simon Court: Does the Minister agree with Matt Lowrie of Greater Auckland that, had he chosen the cheaper surface light rail option, there would be enough money left over to build another rail link to the north-west to Westgate; and, if not, why not?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I thank the member for his question. I also thank the member for his constructive engagement in this issue over time, albeit that we don’t agree on all aspects of the proposal. I disagree with Mr Lowrie on this point, because, ultimately, what we have determined we need to do in Auckland, our largest city, is to finally develop a proper, linked up, high-capacity transport system. The challenges with the surface light rail option favoured by Mr Lowrie and some others, despite the benefits that that offered in terms of cost, were ultimately that it would not provide sufficient capacity into the long term. We don’t want to do what Auckland did in the 1950s and under-build a harbour bridge that then had to be expanded within 10 years.

Secondly, and this is a very important point, the Government’s announcements did not just relate to building a light rail line along the city centre to Māngere corridor. They’re about futureproofing the network with a full network approach, including a new public transport - centred connection to the North Shore, and if we want to have the capacity to link those two systems together, tunnelling is a necessity.

💬 Simeon Brown: Can he confirm that the indicative business case states that the cost of light rail could be as high as $24 billion; and, if so, does he think that a billion dollars for every kilometre of light rail is cost effective?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No, the indicative business case does not quote that figure. The member is extrapolating, as I believe another journalist has extrapolated. It is important to have some clarity around the cost of the project. The 2021 net present value estimate for the project is $10.3 billion. The $14.6 billion P50 price that has been quoted is the inflated cost over the lifetime of the project that builds in significant contingency.

💬 Simeon Brown: What will he have delivered more of by the end of this parliamentary term: metres of light rail or metres of press releases talking about light rail?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! No.

Question No. 10—Police

10. to the Minister of Police: What steps is the Government taking to tackle firearms violence?

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. This Government has committed to the most significant reform of our firearms laws in recent times. Last week, the Arms Amendment Regulations 2021 came into effect. This will tighten up the firearms licence application process by requiring additional information from applicants, including a list of countries visited in the last five years. Following the terrorist attack of March 15, the Government has moved to take 60,000 military-style weapons off the streets. We’ve also established a ministerial arms advisory group to assist these reforms. We’re setting up a new purpose-built firearms unit within police to implement these reforms and, by June 2023, we will have a comprehensive register in place that will help to fill a 30-year deficit of information when it comes to firearms in our community.

💬 Ginny Andersen: What other steps is the Government taking to reduce gun crime?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: This Government is introducing a comprehensive firearms prohibition order (FPO) regime, which is part of our plan to reduce firearms violence. The bill, which will have its first reading in the House later today, will allow the courts to apply a FPO on someone who has committed a serious offence under the Arms Act 1983, the Crimes Act 1961, and the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002. This is a significant step in the Government’s ongoing commitment to protect the public from the harm inflicted by firearms and to ensure that they do not fall into the wrong hands.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: What is her response to Kāinga Ora chief executive Andrew McKenzie’s statement today, “Living up here in Auckland, particularly with the level of gun … violence, which has impacted on our customers, there’s certainly a fear in the community.”?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I know that Kāinga Ora has worked hard to ensure that they provide the appropriate mechanisms in place to ensure that their tenants and the communities and their neighbourhoods are as safe as possible. And I know that they work hand in hand with the police when the police are required to intervene in these cases.

💬 Ginny Andersen: What impact will firearm prohibition orders have on gun crime?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: What we’ve seen from firearms prohibition order regime around the world is that they are a highly effective tool used to reduce gun crime. A person who is subject to an FPO will be banned from accessing, using, or owning a firearm for a decade. Breaching the order will be a criminal offence. High-risk offenders subject to such an order will no longer be able to use licensed gun owners as a front for their illegal firearms. This is yet another tool this Government is putting in place to crack down on gun violence in New Zealand.

💬 Nicole McKee: Is the Minister certain that it’s 60,000 military-style semi-automatics that have been handed in by complying licence owners, as she continuously repeats, or is it a figure of 60,000 firearms that have been handed in by licensed firearm owners, not only military-style semi-automatics?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: My understanding is that the 60,000 are what is termed a “military-style semi-automatic”, as I have been quoting. However, if this is not correct, I am more than prepared to correct the statement in the House—and I shall check that.

Question No. 11—Finance

11. to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the advice provided to him by the Treasury that “Increases in fiscal stimulus outside of higher Alert Levels … have exerted inflationary pressures … by increasing aggregate demand”; if not, why not?

I note that the member has chosen not to provide the full quote in his question. It should be: “Increases in fiscal stimulus outside of higher Alert Levels, however, have exerted inflationary pressures as usual by increasing aggregate demand”. I agree with a good deal of the advice I get from the Treasury, including the advice that they gave to help set up the COVID response and recovery fund to help protect New Zealanders’ lives and livelihoods. I also agree with the Treasury, who, in the previous paragraph to the quote that the member has used, note that “Upward inflationary pressures are coming from the continued supply side disruptions related to this pandemic.” This is a global issue many countries are facing, not just New Zealand.

💬 David Seymour: So, everything else being equal, does he think that borrowing and printing and spending money the way he has for the last two years has put pressure on interest rates and the prices people pay at the checkout and the pump, or not?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: To begin with, everything else being equal is kind of a big caveat—isn’t it?—that the member put on that question. What I would say is I stand by the Government’s response, which was to make sure that we acted swiftly to give people cash flow and confidence and to make sure that we saved lives and livelihoods, and I think we’ve been proven that that approach, both to the economy and health, was a good one. But I do note there are people who would like us to spend more—for example, Chris Baillie, an ACT Party MP, who said that the Government’s Resurgence Support Payment would barely touch the sides for most businesses. So we have to strike a balance between people in the ACT Party who want us to spend more money, and those of us who are taking a careful and balanced approach to the economy.

💬 David Seymour: Has he considered quoting Chris Baillie’s full view that putting endless restrictions with no end in sight on small businesses puts them under enormous pressure, requiring even more Government spending of borrowed money to prop them up, and has he advised his colleagues that if they don’t show New Zealanders a proper pathway to getting our lives back without his endless COVID-controlling restrictions, he’s going to run out of other people’s money?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I took my lead from the member and chose the bits of the quote I liked.

💬 David Seymour: What’s the most convincing reassurance the Minister can give New Zealanders that his Government has a solution to the rising costs of living that they face?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The record that the Government has had consistently over the four years we’ve been in office is of making careful spending decisions while investing in the areas of economy and society that need it. New Zealanders know, because they can see in the fact that we have the lowest unemployment rate that we’ve ever had, that we actually have economic growth running into this last outbreak ahead of where we were in COVID, that we’re going to get back to surplus earlier than expected, that our level of debt is likely to peak out at 40 percent of GDP—much lower than most other countries in the OECD—and that they have a Government that not only cares about them but also is carefully managing the economy.

💬 David Seymour: What responsibility does the Minister take for the fact that prices are at a 31-year high and Kiwis are having to choose between putting food on the table and petrol in the car as they anticipate rising mortgage rates taking, in some cases, hundreds of dollars a week out of household budgets, or does he just think everything’s tickety-boo?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We all understand the pressure that increasing prices put on families. That’s why this Government has increased benefits by a greater amount than any Government in a generation, it’s why we continue to lift the minimum wage, and it’s why we make very careful spending decisions that invest both in the short-term need now and in the long-term future. The member needs to explain to this House how it is he thinks cutting health spending or education spending is somehow going to lower the cost of petrol. It’s not. Inflation is a global phenomenon, and the Government will continue to support New Zealanders to deal with it.

💬 David Seymour: Since spending is at record highs—up 58 percent—under his Government, are the only solutions this Government has left for the cost of living crisis for everyone to be either on a benefit or the minimum wage? Because that’s the only other thing he mentions.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. What we’ve had to do was deal with the likes of David Seymour, who wanted us to increase spending on the Resurgence Support Payment well ahead of where we were, and we took the balanced approach of making sure we looked after New Zealanders while being careful with our spending.

💬 David Seymour: Is the Minister seriously saying that the problem with his COVID response and everything he’s got wrong in the last two years is the fault of one David Seymour?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. I think what we’ve got right is by not listening to Mr Seymour.

Question No. 12—Economic and Regional Development

12. to the Minister for Economic and Regional Development: What progress has the Government made on regional economic priorities?

In the member’s own electorate of Northland—also part of Kelvin Davis’s Te Tai Tokerau seat—the Puketawa Marae in the Hokianga became the 500th regional economic development project completed with Crown investment from the Provincial Growth Fund and other funds. With more than 500 projects now delivered, regional economies have been given a shot in the arm from our wider strategy to support local jobs and businesses and strengthen community resilience. As our Prime Minister announced in her statement to Parliament yesterday, historic under-investment in infrastructure has been a handbrake on our economy and our communities and held back regions from reaching their full potential. The renovation of Puketawa Marae was done by local companies, subbies, and workers, with 22 people employed at various stages. Locals were kept in work during the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and local businesses won contracts for materials and service.

💬 Anna Lorck: What projects in Hawke’s Bay have enabled the Government to make progress on regional economic development priorities?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: The Government has delivered 47 completed regional economic development projects in Hawke’s Bay—$34 million has been invested in this region, creating jobs, investing in regional infrastructure, and supporting local jobs and businesses. For example, our investments have seen Hawk Group increase manufacturing to accommodate growth, extension and improvement of the Tukituki cycle trails, and allowed The Limery in Wairoa to greatly expand. This Government will continue to deliver support for our regional economies, investing in regional infrastructure which has previously been run down, and removing barriers for growth in our regional economies.

Tāmati Coffey: What projects in the Bay of Plenty have enabled the Government to make progress on regional economic development priorities?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: For the Bay of Plenty, the Government has delivered 50 completed regional economic development projects, with a value of over $40 million. These projects have removed barriers for growth and given a meaningful boost to the regional economy. Our investment has seen investment in the St John Ambulance station, the Miro-Meihana Koata Berry Farm, creating jobs and supporting the local economy. And we are not done yet. The momentum of regional economic development is picking up pace. We’re delivering for communities, boosting regional economies across a wide variety of industries, and supporting local jobs and businesses.