Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: On what date will Budget 2022 be delivered, and what will its priorities be?

I’m pleased to inform the House that Budget 2022 will be delivered on Thursday, 19 May. We will continue to progress the goals the Government set at the start of this parliamentary term to keep New Zealanders safe from COVID-19, accelerate the recovery, and rebuild from the impacts of COVID-19, and lay the foundations for the future, including addressing key issues such as our climate change response, housing affordability, and child poverty. Our investments in Budget 2022 will be guided by the enduring objectives that were set at the first Wellbeing Budget and are based on evidence, advice, data, and science as to the areas that New Zealand needs to focus on to meet the long-term opportunities and challenges that we have. The Budget will include a particular focus this year on the Government’s health reforms and investing to meet our climate change goals.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: How will health be addressed through Budget 2022?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: COVID-19 has highlighted how vital a joined-up and prepared health system is for protecting New Zealanders. There is also longstanding evidence that our health system has not delivered equitable outcomes, particularly for Māori. Budget 2022 will make significant investments in establishing the new entities on a sustainable basis that will replace district health boards, and begin delivery of the health system shifts envisaged through reform. Managing rising healthcare costs will be a major challenge in the coming decades, and we need to ensure that the new entities have a solid base for tackling that challenge. The Budget will also begin a multi-year approach to funding the health sector. Initially, this will be a two-year funding path, and then, from 2024, we will move to three-year funding, in line with New Zealand’s first health plan. This approach is essential to give certainty to the sector and to tackle our long-term health challenges.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: How will climate change be addressed in Budget 2022?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’re also investing in initiatives to reduce emissions and meet our climate goals. As we announced at the Budget Policy Statement on 15 December last year, the Climate Emergency Response Fund will hypothecate or recycle the revenue generated from the emissions trading scheme (ETS) into emissions reduction projects from 2022 on. This fund has been established with $4.5 billion from the ETS based on forecast proceeds over the next four years. This will ensure an enduring multi-year funding mechanism to support our transition to a low-emission, climate-resilient economy in a way that protects vulnerable families.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What is the economic environment in which Budget 2022 will be delivered?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The economic conditions that we face are constantly evolving as a result of the Omicron outbreak and global supply constraints and other conditions. We face Omicron in a strong fiscal position, and we will continue to protect the lives and livelihoods of New Zealanders and address long-term challenges. The Government’s books are forecast to return to surplus in 2023-24, three years earlier than forecast at the Budget in May. Our balanced approach has seen net debt forecast to peak at 40.1 percent of GDP, compared to 48 percent at Budget 2021. We will continue to take a balanced approach that prioritises important projects that need to be done, along with the ongoing need for fiscal sustainability.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes. In particular, I continue to stand by our decision to increase the minimum wage to $21.20. This Government remains committed to supporting New Zealanders by raising their wages, and we continue to stand by this policy that will directly benefit approximately 300,000 workers—many of whom who have gone above and beyond during the pandemic. Our position has not changed; just as, I see, the member’s position of not having a position has not changed either.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she agree with the Salvation Army, who said today that housing has become “more than a crisis, it is a catastrophe.”, and does she think rents going up $7,280 annually, under her Government, has made things better or worse for vulnerable New Zealanders?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I absolutely agree we have a housing crisis, and the member across the aisle belongs to a party that when in Government refused to acknowledge that, and that is why they did not build enough houses. It’s absolutely clear that we continue to play catch-up, and the Salvation Army will know well the work that we are doing, given we have partnered with them in our building programmes—many of which are innovative in the way that we are trying to partner together to grow supply. We have created over 8,000 housing places since we’ve been in Government we will not stop there. I’d be interested to hear what the member’s plan is, because, so far, he’s opposed every initiative to grow housing stock.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why should anyone believe this Government is serious about tackling benefit dependency and hardship, when there are 37,000 more children growing up in a benefit-dependent home than when she became Prime Minister?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have to say I am surprised, because I thought the member may actually move away from the tired old tropes of the National Party when it comes to Government support. I would like to reflect, also, so that we can actually make sure that we’re dealing in the facts: if you look at a quarter-by-quarter analysis of this period post one of the biggest crises we’ve had in a hundred years, we currently have, roughly, 11 percent of our population on main benefits versus post the global financial crisis (GFC) 13 percent. So, despite the fact this has been a huge crisis, on this side of the House we have supported people to get back into work and done so, some might argue, more successfully than even after the GFC.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Is it her Government’s approach simply to make poverty a slightly less miserable experience or does she agree the best approach to tackling hardship is to get people back into work and independence?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, deep irony being asked in that question by the leader of a party who saw child poverty worsen; when, on this side of the House, we, against nine indicators of child poverty, have turned each of them around. Is there more work to do? Absolutely, which is why we have increased funding into the flexi-wage to support businesses to take on workers who may be receiving Government support; why we created Mana in Mahi, which has seen our young people into training and education; why we brought back the full training incentive allowance, which, of course, the National Party when in Government slashed. We have a record of moving people into work and we have done that; if you look at the National Party, sadly, they did the opposite.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she believe work is the fundamental source of people’s dignity and that under her Government the number of Kiwis dependent upon a benefit, instead of being able to provide for themselves through work, has increased significantly?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I do believe that work is the source of dignity; I’m the Leader of the Labour Party. I also believe that work should also be able to put food on the table, which is why I support an increase in the minimum wage, and, clearly, that member does not.

💬 Christopher Luxon: If she can’t get people from welfare into work and independence now, at a time of low unemployment and widespread labour shortages, when will she?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’d actually point out again, based on fact, that the Government has. Because of its investment in things like the wage subsidy and our programmes like the flexi-wage, Mana in Mahi, and our other investments, particularly in young people, we have 96,273 people less on the main benefits than Treasury forecast. Our efforts have actually outstripped the expectation that many had around the number of people who would require Government support during what has been a one-in-100-year economic crisis.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that under Labour more Kiwis are getting trapped on a benefit for longer and more children are growing up in benefit-dependent homes because her Government can’t get people from welfare into work?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I utterly reject the member’s assertion. I’m going to come back again to the facts. If you compare the percentage of working-age population on a benefit in December 2021, it was 11.7 percent, compared to 13.1 percent in the December 2010 quarter, when the National Government was in and we’d experienced the GFC. What we have just experienced was profoundly worse and yet we have done better than in the GFC. Also, the number of people on a benefit for one to two years who went into work in the last quarter increased by 96 percent; those on a benefit for two to four years saw the year-on-year exit into work rise by 129 percent. The member, I’m afraid, is not looking at the facts.

Question No. 3—Health

3. to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about online mental health support for parents?

On Friday, I announced the Positive Parenting Programme—Triple P—and this suite of online programmes offers practical advice, easy-to-use resources, and strategies for parents to help their children and teens cope with life’s ups and downs. Just as the vaccine programme has been key, supporting mental wellbeing has also been a vital part of this Government’s response to COVID-19.

💬 Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: Who will be able to access the Triple P programme?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: During last year’s Delta lockdown, the programmes were made available to parents in Auckland. We received very positive feedback from that, and now the programme will be available to parents anywhere in the country. We know COVID-19 has caused stress for many families, with worries about money, work, and schooling, and all of this affects people’s mental health. This is about supporting parents and children to manage their wellbeing over the long term.

💬 Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What supports are available through the Triple P programme?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The free Triple P suite of online programmes that are available include Triple P online, teen Triple P online, and fear-less Triple P online. We know that this pandemic has been particularly tough on young people, and, for some, the return to school after an extended break may add to the stress. These programmes enable parents to help their children and teens get on top of anxiety and become more happy, confident, and resilient, and I would encourage anyone who wishes to access the programme to go to www.triplep-parenting.net.nz.

Question No. 4—Finance

Does he stand by all of his statements and actions on new spending in Budget 2022?

Have one more go.

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions on spending in Budget 2022?

Yes, in the context in which they were made and undertaken.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: In light of his statement to me last week that “a big chunk” of his $6 billion of new spending in Budget 2022 is “making sure that we reform the health system”, does he accept that this expensive Labour Government restructuring won’t deliver a single new hip or cataract operation, won’t speed up immunisation or emergency department waiting times, and won’t deliver any more ICU beds, in and of itself?

💬 SPEAKER: The Minister can answer one or more of the four questions.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I do not accept that. What I do accept is that New Zealanders have learnt through the COVID-19 pandemic the importance of a well-funded, joined-up health system. That is what we will be delivering. We cannot go on with the things that have failed. The National Party, as ever, would like to do nothing, but, on this side of the House, we believe New Zealanders deserve better.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How could he tell me with a straight face last week that not spending billions on an expensive restructure is equivalent to “health cuts”, when the restructure itself won’t deliver any more services or benefits, other than to highly paid Wellington consultants?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is just plain wrong. On this side of the House, we know what it takes to invest in the health system, unlike the Opposition over there, and whatever spin Mr Bridges wants to put on it, a Government that invests in the healthcare system of New Zealand is one that is investing in the future of New Zealand. Every single New Zealander knows the National Party’s record on health: cut, cut, cut.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is he really saying that either everyone agrees with every last dollar of his $6 billion in new spending—the biggest Budget spend ever—or it’s simply signing up for health cuts?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. What I’m saying is the National Party have a track record of heath cuts, and, on this side of the House, we know that the answer to delivering New Zealanders the health services that they deserve is not to do nothing; it’s actually to get on with the job of supporting people. And I would add: if the Opposition say to us that there is no inequity in health, that we don’t need to do more for Māori, and that we don’t need to do more for rural New Zealand, well, that’s fine, but that is not correct.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How about he actually just deliver more services rather than wasting a whole lot of money on fancily paid Wellington consultants?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Over the last four years, I have been working hard with the Minister of Health and with the Ministry of Health to make up for the fact that the previous National Government had two years where they decided there needed to be no capital investment in health—none; none whatsoever. That is the legacy of that side. On this side, we’re going to get on with delivering to New Zealanders the health system that they deserve.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Won’t his “big chunk” of his unprecedented $6 billion spend-up, that’s to be spent on health restructuring—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Now, I have been pretty flexible with the member, and I think he knows that, but I am going to haul him back into asking straight questions. Thank you.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Won’t his “big chunk” of his $6 billion in new spending, that’s to be spent on health restructuring, simply result in uncertainty and disruption in our health system, and, on top of that, more inflationary pain for New Zealanders, so that the best thing to do is scrap that wasteful spending right now in advance of his Budget 2022?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, and none of David Farrar’s talking points are going to work, Mr Bridges, because New Zealanders want health spending that makes sure that they’re able to live their lives well, that makes sure mental health services are available—that’s the commitment of this Government. The do-nothing, typical National Party approach is what put New Zealand’s health services at risk. We’ve been fixing it for four years; we’re going to keep fixing it.

💬 SPEAKER: There’s a lot of people who want to take calls from their seats, but I think we’ll go on to question No. 5.

Question No. 5—Foreign Affairs

5. to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Will Aotearoa New Zealand be supporting a target of protection for 30 percent of the world’s oceans in negotiations on the Global Oceans Treaty at the United Nations in March; if not, why not?

on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Aotearoa New Zealand is committed to seeking the conclusion of a new United Nations agreement on marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. The convention is needed to halt the ongoing decline that we see in these areas and to promote restoration as well as sustainable use of marine biodiversity in these areas beyond national jurisdiction—the long title is sometimes shortened to BBNJ. We’re seeking wording in both the BBNJ and the concurrent negotiations towards a new global biodiversity framework that reflects strong qualitative elements as well as an acknowledgment of indigenous rights. The 30 percent proposal is under consideration.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister recognise the value of marine protected areas on the high seas in protecting habitats and species, helping fish stocks recover, and providing resilience with a changing climate and rising sea surface temperatures, and, if not, why not?

Yes—absolutely. But we’re advised, and we accept advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, that in order to have an effective convention, you need strong qualitative elements, not just targets. I’m not decrying the importance of targets, but without qualitative elements to support outcomes that include ecological representation and connectivity and management effectiveness, the convention just would not work.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: What is the Minister’s view on the commitment in the Carbis Bay communique from the G7 summit in Cornwall last June “to champion ambitious and effective … biodiversity targets, including … protecting … at least 30 per cent of the global ocean by 2030.”?

As I’m answering that on behalf of the Minister, I’m not aware of that particular quote.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister agree that the Government has a strong public mandate to push for a target of 30 percent of the world’s oceans being protected by 2030 after the delivery of a 60,000-signature petition in support to Parliament last week; if not, why not?

On behalf of the Minister: I was alongside the member when that petition was delivered to Parliament and valued the civil expression of civil society’s support for doing more in that area, and we support that ambition.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Point of order. I think the Minister is mistaken. That was a bottom-trawling petition. There was another petition delivered to Minister Mahuta and myself and Golriz Ghahraman last week.

Mr Speaker, speaking to the point of order, that’s exactly what I was referring to.

💬 SPEAKER: A further supplementary?

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: How does she respond—how does he respond—to the 2016 resolution of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature supporting a network of representative protected marine areas covering at least 30 percent of each marine habitat with “the ultimate aim of creating a fully sustainable ocean, at least 30% of which has no extractive activities,”?

On behalf of the Minister: as I’ve previously said, it’s important that this goal, which is the protection in areas beyond national jurisdiction, is achieved in a way that doesn’t undermine existing rules and institutions, including the likes of the Antarctic Treaty, and that it properly factors in Māori interests and supports Pacific aspirations. That said, the current mandate does not explicitly refer to the 30 percent target, but Cabinet will be considering that before the next round of the negotiations in the next few months.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: If Cabinet hasn’t yet made a decision on the mandate for a 30 percent target, what does the Minister see as major requirements for a strong and effective global oceans treaty, and will it include provision for a robust process for environmental impact assessment of damaging human activities such as deep-sea mining; if not, why not?

I’ve already addressed parts of that question in a number of the supplementaries, and I would just emphasise that it’s important that there are effective mechanisms sitting in the treaty to make sure that it’s not just hot air.

Question No. 6—COVID-19 Response

6. to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Does he stand by all of the Government’s statements and actions?

on behalf of the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Yes. In particular, this Government’s overall response to COVID-19, which has put the safety and interest of all New Zealanders squarely at its centre, and has seen the historic delivery of over 10 million doses of the vaccine administered in a single year.

Brooke van Velden: Why won’t schools be eligible for the Close Contact Exemption Scheme, and can he assure parents that there’s going to be enough teachers available to teach at the peak of the Omicron outbreak, given the seven-day isolation rules?

Schools are eligible for the Close Contact Exemption Scheme, and advice from the Ministry of Education to schools reflects precisely that circumstance, that the scheme is to be used in case there is a risk that staffing levels aren’t adequate.

Brooke van Velden: Has he asked the Minister of Education how many teachers are likely to have to isolate as close contacts at the peak of the Omicron outbreak, and, if so, what was the outcome of that conversation?

This isn’t quite as interesting as the question might have been had I also been answering on behalf of the Minister of Education. I am not aware of advice on that particular issue, but I am aware of estimates from overseas where, for example, the United Kingdom, that has very similar close-contact isolation requirements that we will at phase 3, has approximately 4 percent to 6 percent absentee rate due to self-isolation across a variety of sectors.

Brooke van Velden: How bad will the shortages of teachers have to get before schools are allowed to become part of the Close Contact Exemption Scheme and not simply just in cases where critical workers’ children are close contacts?

I believe I have addressed that in my answer to the earlier supplementary, that in situations where attendance at school is compromised, then that will be situations where the scheme could be activated by a school.

💬 Chris Baillie: How can he assure parents that their children will have teachers to teach, when nine teachers at a Nelson school are needing to self-isolate after one student tested positive?

I’m not aware of the particulars of that particular contact tracing exercise, but what I can say is that the definitions of contacts have changed now that we are in phase 2, and they will even further at phase 3. This is to enable important services to continue to operate. In addition, schools have access to the Close Contact Exemption Scheme.

Brooke van Velden: Why does he not believe teachers are critical workers, and is it the case that schools are not part of the Close Contact Exemption Scheme, excluding simply in the case of critical workers’ children, because the Government has created a shortage of rapid antigen tests?

I reject the premise of that question. There is a shortage of rapid antigen tests because the Omicron variant has created a worldwide shortage in the supply of them. I believe I have addressed the question about whether schools are critical workers three times in my preceding answer.

Question No. 7—Housing (Public Housing)

7. to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): What recent announcements has she made regarding the regulation of property managers?

This Government is following through on its manifesto commitment to regulate residential property managers and provide greater security and certainty for both landlords and tenants. That’s why today I announced the Government’s detailed proposals to achieve this important piece of work. New Zealand is one of the few countries in the OECD that has an unregulated property management industry, which makes it difficult to calculate how many property managers currently operate in the market. Officials estimate there are between 2,000 and 7,000 property managers across the country. While many abide by appropriate professional standards, the sector as a whole is not required to meet minimum practice standards. These proposals will change that. The detailed proposals announced today are now open for public feedback until 19 April, and I would encourage everyone to have their say.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why did the Government decide to limit regulation of the rental market operators to just property managers, when they manage a minority of rental properties compared to landlords, as outlined in that discussion document?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Property managers manage about 42 percent of the market. Currently, private landlords are covered by regulation within the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA); property managers are not.

💬 Rachel Boyack: What are the proposals included in today’s announcement?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The proposed changes included in the discussion document released today are designed to promote public confidence in the delivery of residential property management services. This will be achieved by establishing professional entry standards, embedding a code of conduct, and providing accountability through an independent and transparent disciplinary and complaints resolution process. These changes will provide more certainty to the nearly one-third of New Zealand households who currently rent.

💬 Rachel Boyack: What will these changes mean for landlords and renters?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: As the residential property market has grown, so too has the role of property managers within it. Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment bond data suggests that property managers are responsible for managing around 42 percent of all rental properties. That’s why there’s a strong interest for both landlords and tenants to have confidence in the service provided by property managers. These changes will provide more security and certainty to both landlords and tenants by putting in place a regulatory system that will provide property managers with more guidance, as well as a robust process for tenants to raise their concerns.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Just with regard to my question earlier, as outlined in the proposed discussion document from the Government and to the Minister’s answer about landlords being covered by the RTA, property managers not—this goes substantially further with regard to education and also the requirement of professional entry requirements.

💬 SPEAKER: So I’m not sure what the member’s point of order is.

Chlöe Swarbrick: That the Minister did not answer the question.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the Minister is not required to answer the question. The Minister addressed the question, and the other point, which I think the member should know now, is that we don’t wind back the clock. Once we’ve moved on to—and I think we’ve had two further supplementary questions after that. You don’t, at that point, decide that there’s a point of order; not that there was one anyway. [Interruption] Can I just say that commentary on Speaker’s rulings—I don’t know which of the two members are being particularly noisy, the young men at the back—

💬 Hon Member: Oh, me? You’re talking about me?

💬 SPEAKER: It was this time—but just if they could cut the commentary on Speaker’s rulings, that would be helpful.

Question No. 8—Housing

8. to the Minister of Housing: Did a Cabinet minute of 12 March 2021 note that policy proposals brought to Cabinet “risk leading to increased rents, which could have negative impacts on child wellbeing and child poverty”, and how much, in dollar terms, have national median weekly rents increased since the Government’s housing package was announced in March 2021?

The member’s question is a cautionary tale in only reading the summary document—or, in this case, the Cabinet minute. A read of the full Cabinet paper and its companion papers would clearly show the member the policy was refined, following officials’ advice, to address the risk the member outlines. The Cabinet paper from which the minute is drawn explains that introducing the new-build exemption would mitigate the impacts on housing supply and rents. The new-build exemption would encourage investment in new builds to increase supply.

💬 Nicola Willis: How much?

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Increasing supply is the best way to address affordability. The final Cabinet paper also noted that the proposals could risk leading to increased rents. It also noted that the magnitude of any potential impact was uncertain, and we have no evidence to show the recent rent increases are driven by the housing policy proposals announced last year. I’d also like to draw the member’s attention to the other paper at the time, which made up the March housing package, which was aptly titled “Increasing housing supply and improving affordability for first home buyers and renters”. The paper established our $3.8 billion Housing Acceleration Fund—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume her seat. I’m now going to ask the member to get on to addressing the second clause of the question.

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: OK. So, to answer the second part of the question, from March 2021 to December 2021, national median weekly rent has increased by $40, according to bond data from Tenancy Services. However, I would note that the national median price does not account for the changes in types and sizes of properties being rented at different times. And, as I mentioned in the House last week, the national median alone does not account for regional variation—for example, in Auckland, where we have seen additional supply, the increase was limited to $20.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does she agree with the Salvation Army, who say in their State of the Nation Report out today that soaring house prices and rental costs are putting a significant strain on families, with a ballooning State house waiting list, suggesting many are struggling?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I agree with everything that is in the Salvation Army report. We as a Government acknowledge that we have a housing crisis, and it’s why, while we have been in Government, t we’ve turned around selling off and reducing the number of public houses that we have in this country to building more public houses than any Government has in a generation. I’m still waiting to hear what the Opposition’s plans are in order to increase public housing—or will they sell them off like they did last time?

💬 Nicola Willis: Will the Minister, in light of that, support my build-to-rent housing bill, provided to her in October, which would boost supply of high-quality rental housing; or do we have to wait—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Keep going, but the Leader of the Opposition needs to know that he cannot do his support while his deputy leader of the National Party is asking a question.

💬 Nicola Willis: Mr Speaker, may I start again?

💬 SPEAKER: No, you can pick up from where you were.

💬 Nicola Willis: Or how much longer do we need to wait for action on build to rent?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I believe this is in the realm of a hypothetical question, because I understand the member hasn’t actually lodged the bill in the members’ ballot. But, no, from what I’ve seen in the media about what the member has talked about her bill, no, we won’t be supporting her on it, because we have been undertaking a programme of work since March of last year which will address the issues, unlike the bill the member has been talking about.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does the Minister consider that the Government’s changes to the tax treatment of rental properties have contributed to the biggest ever annual increase in median rents, and, if she doesn’t share that view, what is driving soaring rental costs?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: There are a range of factors that are driving rental increases, and we can see this across a number of countries. If we look at countries that are also experiencing increases in inflation associated with COVID—such as the UK, such as Canada—their economists are also pointing to rent, along with fuel, being one of the drivers. It is a phenomena that we are seeing around the world. In terms of whether or not I sheet this back to the changes that we made back in our March package: no, I don’t, because we are a Government that has put in place mitigations, namely exempting the interest deductibility from the rentals, and also the brightline exemption for those as well.

💬 Nicola Willis: Was Cabinet advised that tax changes for landlords were “likely to result in increases in rent or the sale of properties by landlords, leading to displacement of renters”, and can she tell the House how many additional families have been forced on to the State house waiting list since her housing package was announced?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In answer to the first part of the question, what Cabinet was advised, in both the paper that the member has referred to in the minute, and its companion paper that went the following week to Cabinet, the one that was entitled “Increasing housing supply and improving affordability for first home buyers and renters”—that Cabinet paper advised Cabinet that it was likely to positively impact those groups who are currently renting and/or unable to buy a home. This was, of course, the $3.8 billion Housing Acceleration Fund that we set up for infrastructure funding in order to increase supply. I point that member to the evidence. Where we are seeing increases in supply, we are seeing much more constrained increase in rental prices.

💬 Nicola Willis: How many additional houses have been built resulting from the fund she announced in March last year?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The member will need to put that question in writing, but I can point the member to the fact that, if I take the announcement of eastern Porirua alone, the announcement that we’ve made of around $156 million, off the top of my head, is going to result in an additional 2,000 houses. It shows the naivety of that member if she thinks that will have resulted in houses by now, and why she is part of a party that has never come up with a solution to the housing crisis.

Question No. 9—Economic and Regional Development

9. to the Minister for Economic and Regional Development: What announcements has he recently made about supporting the events sector?

On Saturday, I announced that the Events Transition Support Payment Scheme (ETSP) will be extended to 31 January 2023 and expanded to include business events, delivering certainty and support for the events sector. Extending the ETSP by expanding it to include eligible business events of at least 200 attendees will give much-needed certainty to this industry. These changes will provide confidence to those operating in these sectors so they can plan knowing that the Government will underwrite 90 percent of their unrecoverable costs from now until next summer.

💬 Helen White: Why has the Government moved to provide additional support to the sector?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: The Government moved quickly to provide support for event organisers due to the precarious nature of this industry in times of uncertainty. As a consequence, thousands of New Zealanders were able to enjoy large concerts and festivals over summer. But Omicron has changed the game and we have adapted our plan in response. We know that under the current Red settings, large events cannot proceed. This is devastating for event organisers, artists, and everyone associated with large-scale events, including attendees. The changes I announced last week will provide a degree of certainty so that event organisers can continue to plan despite the ongoing unpredictability due to COVID-19. Already, event organisers in Auckland and Mangawhai have received funds paid out of the scheme, 17 events have been delivered with our help, and we expect 53 still to proceed over the next few months.

💬 Helen White: What feedback has he seen from the sector?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: This announcement was welcome news for a sector that has been under considerable pressure since the start of this global pandemic. Business Events Industry Aotearoa’s Lisa Hopkins said they were “overjoyed” that the Government had acknowledged through the expanded scheme “the key role business events will have in New Zealand’s recovery”. Wellington Homegrown event director, Andrew Tuck, said, “If it wasn’t for the Government’s scheme, we’d probably be looking down the barrel of not being able to run again.” And the organisers of WOMAD in Taranaki said that they acknowledge “the Government’s Events Transition Support Scheme recognising the important role our festival plays in the region of Taranaki and ensuring the future of the festival.”

Question No. 10—Immigration

10. to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all his answers given in question time yesterday; if so, can he confirm the date the immigration instructions were amended to include the border exception for 200 rural contractors that was announced by Minister O’Connor on 12 December last year?

Yes, particularly as the immigration system has supported the primary sector during the border closure, with over 6,000 workers brought in through the class-exemption process to support our economic recovery. These decisions have supported sectors and have helped to keep New Zealanders safe. With regard to the rural contractors’ exception, the date the amended instruction was signed out by me was 19 January—not the 21st, as the member said yesterday. That was two days after they were given to me, and in line with a Cabinet decision in December last year to implement in early 2022. This decision was made to manage significant pressure on managed isolation and quarantine over the summer break.

💬 Erica Stanford: How can he stand by his answer yesterday—that he was told by Rural Contractors New Zealand that immigration instructions needed to be in place by February—when an email sent to him by Rural Contractors New Zealand and copied to the National Party in December states, “When will visa applications be open to contractors to ensure they are in the country as soon as possible in January?”

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Because when we spoke to the rural contractors late last year and outlined the plan, February was the time frame which they could work with.

💬 Erica Stanford: How can it be that when the Minister receives two emails from Rural Contractors New Zealand, dated 24 December and 7 January, it took him another—maths—couple of weeks to sign off instructions to allow those contractors to apply for visas?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The member should listen to the primary answer. Cabinet made a decision to implement in early 2022. That’s exactly what we did.

💬 Erica Stanford: What does the Minister say to farmers who were relying on those 200 rural contractors signed off on 12 December, who are now unable to harvest crops in February, because only 40 of those 200 rural contractors have continued with the process and none are due to arrive this month, despite urgent emails from rural contractors—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member asked the question some time ago.

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I’d also note to the member that I believe on 21 December last year, given a forecast for a potential Omicron outbreak, the Government had to change its plans to reopen the border. As the member or the Opposition may have noticed, we are still trying to deal with a global pandemic, and keeping New Zealanders safe and making sure we change some of our plans and do that in a safe way was done on 21 December.

Question No. 11—Internal Affairs

11. to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What progress has she seen on the Government’s investment in protecting New Zealand’s heritage and archival documents?

Recently, I was incredibly privileged to take part in the turning-of-the-sod ceremony at the Aitken Street site to mark the commencement of the building of our new archives building. This is a significant milestone in the Government’s Tāhuhu programme, a once-in-a-lifetime project to create a national documentary heritage campus for Archives New Zealand, the National Library, and Ngā Taonga Sound and Vision. When we came to office, it became clear that our archives building, where some of our most prized taonga treasures and our national story are kept—it had been, frankly, neglected and was in a dire state needing repairs. Our archives building is at capacity and at the end of its economic life. Thanks to the funding allocated in Budget 2020, we are able to progress initial development of the project.

💬 Shanan Halbert: How will the new specialist buildings benefit New Zealanders?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: Archives New Zealand has never had a national purpose-built facility before. We can say with confidence that best-practice standards have been applied to this specialist building. This new building will provide a state-of-the-art archives repository and specialist facilities. It’s our aspiration that staff and visitors will feel a sense of pride and a place when they walk through the doors, knowing that our nation’s taonga are being well cared for. The new building will be physically linked to the National Library, creating a new public record and documentary heritage campus for all New Zealanders to access our stories, taonga, and heritage, held on behalf of the nation by the three institutions. This is a substantial construction project that is expected to create around 500 construction jobs over the next three to four years and scheduled to be open to the New Zealand public in 2026.

💬 Shanan Halbert: How has the design of the buildings incorporated tangata whenua and Te Ao Māori world view?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: The design process for these buildings is an example of Te Tiriti and the strong Māori Crown relationships in practice. Taranaki Whānui Te Ati Awa representatives have worked in partnership to co-design this building with a Te Ao Māori world view, connecting the building with the celebrated kāinga of Pipitea, the ancestral home of hapū Taranaki Whānui Te Ati Awa. It is vital that these buildings are a true reflection of our history, our tīpuna, and our tangata whenua.

Question No. 12—Local Government

12. to the Minister of Local Government: Does she stand by all her statements and actions in relation to Three Waters reform, and is she still committed to the legislated “all in” approach to Three Waters reform?

on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: Yes.

💬 Simon Watts: Why did Cabinet agree to a legislated, all-in approach to three waters reform in June before the consultation period with local government even began, and what has she done since that revelation to ensure local government voices are heard in three waters reforms?

On behalf of the Minister, in answer to the first part of the question, I reject the premise of the member’s question. In answer to the second part of the question, the member will be well aware that the working group is currently taking a look at matters of representation, governance, and accountability.

💬 Simon Watts: So, in light of that answer, what does she say to the 27 member councils of Communities 4 Local Democracy, who say that—and I quote—“The Government has stymied opposition to its plans by effectively muzzling Local Government New Zealand and hand-picking representatives for the working group, rather than having wider consultation. This is not good faith consultation.”?

On behalf of the Minister, with respect, I say that I do not agree to that and what I further say to those mayors is that this Government is committed to making sure that New Zealanders have safe drinking water, effectively and efficiently managed storm and waste water, and to making sure that we save money for ratepayers. I think all of us would agree that those are good aims. We will continue to work with councils on the final development of the proposal.

💬 Simon Watts: In light of the overwhelming opposition from local government and the New Zealand public, will she now admit that it is time to re-think her three waters reforms?

On behalf of the Minister, this Government is prepared to face up to a decades-long under-investment in our three waters infrastructure. We need to bring together entities that can borrow enough money to be able to make up for that under-investment. We’re committed to making sure that these stay in public ownership. We’re committed to making sure that New Zealanders have the highest-quality water services. There is an option here, which I know that National Party would prefer, as they would on everything we’ve covered today: do nothing. That is not the option this side of the House favours.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: I apologise for my confusion before, Mr Speaker and Minister Parker. But on this one: does she support any of the alternative options for three waters reform proposed by Communities 4 Local Democracy, and will she and officials seriously consider and engage on those options, and, if not, why not?

On behalf of the Minister: the Minister has met with that group. She has encouraged that group to submit to the governance group and we will seriously consider all things that come from that group.

💬 Simon Watts: Just say no. You don’t listen to anybody.

💬 SPEAKER: The trouble is that with my hearing aid in, I do listen.