Oral Questions

1. to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her response when asked if New Zealand has a cost of living crisis that “I wouldn’t describe it that way”, and is she considering adjusting income tax brackets to help Kiwis struggling with rising prices?

I stand by the entirety of the interview, where I stated that—

💬 Chris Bishop: Ha!

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member’s going across the top of their own leader.

💬 Chris Bishop: What? No I’m not. She’s answering the question.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —where I—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat. I will remind members of the comments that I made last week, and that is that we are in a more sensitive time as far as members who are participating remotely, and excess noise is something which interferes with their ability to hear the answer. I will ask members to control themselves and especially Mr Bishop not to argue from his seat.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I stand by the entirety of the interview, where I stated, “There is an impact that people are feeling undeniably.” The debate is not whether inflation has increased and is impacting people. The debate is what we should do about it. The Opposition has proposed cuts to the top tax rate and getting rid of policies to help first-home buyers. We, on the other hand, have worked consistently to increase focused support for low and middle income earners. That’s why we’ve overseen a $5 increase in the minimum wage, benefiting around 300,000 workers. We’ve increased Working for Families changes that will lead to 346,000 people better off by an average of $20 each a week. We created the winter energy payment, starting again from 1 May, benefiting over a million New Zealanders during the winter months. We made the largest across the board increases in benefit incomes since the 1940s, and we’ve increased the pay of new police officers by 19 percent since 2017, 16 percent for primary teachers, and 21 percent for new nurses. The Government’s plan is providing targeted support to New Zealand families to deal with the costs of living, whilst also investing in critical services and, importantly, keeping a lid on debt.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why won’t she admit that New Zealand has a cost of living crisis when rent is up $140 a week and food prices are up more than 13 percent under Labour?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: This side of the House absolutely acknowledges the increases that families across New Zealand are currently experiencing—as many other countries are—as we see the COVID recovery mean that demand is often outstripping supply. We also have the issue, of course, of the pressure on fuel prices, which have gone up over 500 percent since April 2020 in terms of a barrel of crude oil. That is having an impact. But what I would contend is that the National Party’s proposal, for instance, to take away essentially $26 per week from someone earning under $40,000—because they voted against our increases to the family tax credit—and instead replace it with $2.15 is simply not the way to support families who need it most.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that with petrol now above $3 a litre in some places, Kiwis are having to pay as much as $60 more to fill up than when she took office, and if so, why won’t she admit we have a cost of living crisis?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I again will bring the member back to where we are having the debate currently, which is that the member is proposing to, for instance, cut policies that will make it easier for first-home buyers to get into the market, and to get rid of the top tax bracket, instead of focusing on support for low and middle income New Zealanders. Now, again, I would also point out that the member, at the same time as he is raising what is essentially the impacts of international fuel prices and the fact that we have now a conflict in energy-rich countries with Russia invading Ukraine—yes, it’s having an impact at the pump. But the member is well short on his proposals, because he essentially is not answering the question of how he would pay for some of the things that he is proposing. There are two options: he’s cutting health, he’s cutting education, or he’s increasing debt.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Mr Speaker—

💬 SPEAKER: Before the member goes on, I think I’m just going to do a reminder, and that is that when using the remote system, members are, after a couple of supplementaries to their primary question, still required to call. I think the member received some training—I hope the member received some training—on that. If he hasn’t, I’ll just run through until he’s finished, except if someone else goes to it. But a reminder to all members who are participating remotely: if they have a question, they automatically get two supplementaries, and then we go to other members or we finish, unless they indicate through the chat function that they want the call.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she accept she could provide tax relief to more than 3.2 million Kiwis by simply adjusting the tax brackets for inflation, and the $4.3 billion she had left for new spending would still be the single biggest increase in new spending in New Zealand’s history?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is proposing a change in policy that would essentially see someone, for instance, as I’ve said, who would be on a wage of $45,000 receiving $2.15 per week. At the same time, he has rejected and voted against the family tax credit increases that we proposed that would mean that they were more than $20 a week better off. He does not support increases in the minimum wage. He wants to get rid of the top tax bracket that we have introduced. He’s proposing $3 billion worth of cuts to health, education, and all of the services that New Zealanders value; either that or he wants to increase debt. We stand by our policies. They are focused on low and middle income earners, whereas his will give $2.15 instead, where people could be better off by over $20.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Is it fair that someone on the minimum wage who works 44 hours a week is set to face a marginal tax rate of 30c on the dollar, or that someone on the average wage is now in the 33 percent tax bracket?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Or is it fair that that member asks that question whilst not supporting any increase to the minimum wage? Again, here I come back to the wider point: consistently, since 2017, as a Government we have been focused on lifting the incomes of New Zealanders. And here is the impact of those policies: a minimum wage worker working 40 hours a week in 2017, compared to now, is receiving an extra $218 per week. A new police officer graduate is receiving $12,292 more overall per annum. An experienced nurse—$16,431. The average pay for a secondary teacher—a $12,905 difference between now and 2017. That is a marked increase as a result of the focus we’ve had on lifting the wages of low and middle income New Zealanders, and we stand by that.

💬 Christopher Luxon: What does she say to the mother of five, Krystine Nation, who told the AM Show, “This is something that is so embarrassing to say but I cannot afford to go to work … It’s cheaper for me to stay at home and not pay the extra petrol, not pay the huge daycare costs, and the extra food for lunches.”; and how does she think struggling Kiwi families feel when they hear her refusing to even admit we have a cost of living crisis?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We have always been very careful to ensure that we’ve done things like increase the minimum family tax credit, that we have the in-work tax credit, and that we make sure that those keep pace to ensure that families are always better off in work, and that’s where increases in the family tax credit also make a difference. But, sadly, the member who asked the question has often not supported any of those increases.

💬 Christopher Luxon: How can she say with a straight face that Kiwis paying an extra $5,000 a year for basics like food, power, petrol, and rent doesn’t count as a cost of living crisis?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the member is not hearing anything that I’m saying in acknowledging that, right now, yes, there are increases that are impacting on New Zealand families. As I said, it’s undeniable. But the debate here is whether or not the member’s solutions or the Government’s are the ones that will benefit New Zealanders the most. Now, we haven’t even got to the fact that what the member is proposing is highly inflationary. So it wouldn’t take much for that $2 that the member is proposing to be absorbed. I come back to the point: consistently, since 2017, we have focused on putting hundreds of millions of dollars back into the pockets of Kiwis, and it stands true—

💬 Nicola Willis: Defensive, much?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Second warning, Nicola Willis.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —that they’ve seen an increase in incomes that has outstripped the increases in the cost of living. Right now, though, there is an impact, and the whole world is seeing it, and that’s why we will continue to take measures like those I’ve already spoken to today.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Given concerns that have been raised about the cost of food, has she seen any reports of increased support for the Government’s free and healthy school lunches programme?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would expect all members in this House to support a programme that has seen tens of thousands of children now receive free lunches in schools, and we made that a universal policy for those schools that are in the programme to ensure that all families receive the benefit of having one less thing to worry about. When it comes to the increase in the cost of food, I have seen one other report: the Leader of the Opposition complaining about a potential increase to the cost of his coffee as a result of the increase in the minimum wage. That is where that member’s priorities lie.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does that mean it’s her view that, if the Government spends an extra $6 billion, it won’t be inflationary, but giving Kiwis less than a third of that in tax relief would be?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, the Treasury has consistently given advice over what has inflationary impacts, and if you increase demand in the economy, then yes, that would have inflationary impacts, but that doesn’t stop, of course, the Government continuing to look to ways to support those who feel disproportionately the impact in the cost of living, which is exactly why we have created targeted spending—$270 million worth—into families by increasing the family tax credit.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Is the reason she won’t admit New Zealand has a cost of living crisis simply because that would mean admitting she has a responsibility to do something about it, but she’d rather increase spending than give more than three million some much needed, inflation-adjusted tax relief at the Budget?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Actually, the opposite—actually, the opposite. The point that I have been making throughout my entire time in office is that we’ve been working to ease the cost of living and increase wages from the time we took office, not just right now, and that’s why, when you look back, for instance, overall, at the increase in incomes for families that we’ve worked on since 2017, if you take a newly trained secondary school teacher, not only have their wages increased, they’ve also had an increase in the family tax credit; they’ve continued to receive the in-work tax credit. If they have a newborn in their family, they’d receive the Best Start payment. Their weekly in total, before wages are taxed, would have increased by $224. A sole parent working 30 hours at the minimum wage, again, would have received an increase in their wages, accommodation supplement, family tax credit, minimum family tax credit—in all, an extra $336. The point I’m making is that the member opposite may only have started talking about the importance of increasing wages against the cost of living now; we’ve been talking about it since 2017.

Question No. 2—Finance

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

The Crown’s accounts, released last week, continue to reflect the resilience of the economy and the Government’s balanced financial management. For the seven months to the end of January, the operating balance before gains and losses deficit was $8 billion, $3.7 billion below the forecast in December’s Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update. Net core Crown debt stood at 34.5 percent of GDP—$600 million less than had been predicted, and significantly below the countries with which we compare ourselves. New Zealand is in a strong fiscal position as we deal with the impacts of the Omicron outbreak and other challenges, and it is this that gives us the ability to particularly support low and middle income earners at this time.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What is the impact of the economy on the country’s tax take?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The economy’s strength is shown in tax revenue being $1.4 billion above forecast, at $59.7 billion. This is largely due to better than expected corporate profits and a strong jobs market, with more people in work. This better than expected result reflects the resilience of the economy, despite the volatility and uncertainty surrounding the ongoing pandemic. We will continue to take a balanced approach to this response and invest in the longstanding challenges that we have, while carefully managing our resources for the long term.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What other reports has he seen on the economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The strength of the jobs market is continuing to support New Zealand’s economy. Stats New Zealand reported last week that filled jobs in January rose at a faster pace of 0.5 percent or 10,630 jobs on December to reach a new high of $2.3 million. This marks 14 months of continuous job gains, despite the effects of the pandemic. The robust jobs market shows the Government’s actions in response to COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic to protect lives and livelihoods has proved to be the best economic approach. The way for us to support New Zealanders and get more money in their pockets is to have people in work with decent wages, and that is what we are working on.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement, “I wouldn’t describe it that way” when asked if there was a cost of living crisis; if so, why?

As I’ve already told the House, I stand by the full interview where I acknowledged the impact high inflation driven by significant increases in global energy prices and supply chain issues is having on New Zealand families. My full quote also set out some of the changes this Government has made to increase the incomes of New Zealand families—changes I note he also opposed. There is no doubt that globally we are seeing the impact of increased demand and supply constraints as a result of the global COVID-19 recovery but I stand by our response to this and our COVID-19 plan itself. I note the member disagrees, having published a newsletter on 7 March stating, “Were the lives saved from COVID-19 worth shutting down the country? … Had we known all of this from the start would we have made different choices?”. I for one would have not.

💬 David Seymour: Does she agree with the statement “unemployment, housing, cost of living add up to people [losing] faith in [Government].”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said in some of my previous answers, the fact is that we have been focused through the entirety of our time in office in ensuring that people are in jobs—jobs that are paying them dignified wages, that allow them to put food on the table—that we have worked hard to address the housing crisis, which we know continues to require our absolute focus, and in lifting wages because of course that is how we ensure that we have a productive economy and of course, as I say, people able to lead meaningful lives. I stand by all our efforts in those areas.

💬 David Seymour: Did the Prime Minister just have difficulty addressing that question directly because that statement was made by one Jacinda Ardern in 2013?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I absolutely addressed the question and acknowledged the importance of all of those things and as I’ve said in answer to the other Leader of the Opposition’s answers—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Mr Bennett—last warning.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: And as I said in my answers to the other Leader of the Opposition, I stand by all of our efforts to address the cost of living and increase wages, and the facts speak for themselves.

💬 David Seymour: Does her Government have any solutions to make life more affordable for New Zealanders that don’t include handing out money taxed from others; and, if not, why won’t she cut the middle-income tax rate of 30c down to 17.5c so that average worker keeps $2,000 more of their own money?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: And as I’ve already addressed in my previous answers, we have focused on increasing the wages of New Zealanders at the middle and low income wages through various means. Whether it’s the increase in the minimum wage or whether or not it’s through initiatives like addressing the inadequate incomes of many of our public servants—all of it has made a difference across our nurses, our teachers, our police. I note that those same workers would probably also want us to invest in health, in education, in making sure we have more police, more doctors, more nurses, and more teachers, and we have done that as well. The member’s proposals would see the opposite: cuts in each of those areas.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister stand by her answer to the primary question; and if she really believes that saving a life is worth any cost, why does her Government have a Pharmac review that doesn’t even consider funding?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: When it comes to Pharmac, I stand by the fact that we have increased considerably the Pharmac budget since we have been in office. But to come back to the member’s actual answer, I almost cannot believe in this House that we are now having a debate over whether or not our COVID response was worth the lives it saved—absolutely—and it will be up to that member to justify outside of this House why he believes that we can emerge from this crisis with one of the lowest rates of unemployment that we’ve seen, growth, solid export earnings for our exporters, and a COVID recovery economically that is solid and saved thousands of lives—and yet he would rather have seen death.

💬 David Seymour: So COVID’s worth it but certain cancer and other patients pleading for essential drugs from Pharmac aren’t?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The argument I am making is that we achieved in New Zealand both. We have managed to save lives and have an economic recovery that has outstripped almost any other OECD nation.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Would cancer patients in our hospitals have received better or worse healthcare if our health system had been overrun with COVID cases for the last two years?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: You only need to look at those countries where they did have an exponential increase in cases and increase in hospitalisations to hear the stories of people who missed out on cancer care as a result. It is a remarkable testament to our health workforce that even Middlemore managed to continue on with planned care for a long period of time, even during this outbreak. I almost cannot believe what the member is proposing.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister agree with Grant Robertson’s comments that tax cuts are inflationary; and, if so, can she explain to New Zealanders how her Government spending their money is not inflationary, but letting them keep it and spend it themselves is inflationary?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, the member has left out the context in which the Minister of Finance was making those comments which is that, right now—and he is not alone in making those statements—economists would make the same statements, as would the Treasury around the impacts right now being inflationary.

Question No. 4—Women

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just in relation to question No. 4 before you call it, I think a few of us were slightly surprised to see the wording of question No. 4 today, because it starts with “In light of today being International Women’s Day,”. I’d draw the Speaker’s attention to Speakers’ ruling 174/6, which says, “(1) Questions must not be prefaced with a statement; or (2) with assertions or assumptions, such as ‘given’ or ‘in the light’.”—most recently, from 2017—

Right. No, I accept I made an error in accepting the question. I will take the member’s advice and be much stricter in accepting questions from now on.

Well, no—point of order, Mr Speaker. The point I was going to make before you stood up, sir, was that if there is going to be a slight liberalisation in relation to the rule that, particularly, primary questions have to start with a question word, I don’t think there would be much disagreement in relation to that if there was to be some slightly loose liberalisation, if that is indeed where we’re going.

No. I want to make it clear: this was not a deliberate decision on my part. It was an error and I will be looking very carefully at all primary questions—more carefully than I have been—to make sure that they’re fully within the rules, and I’ll warn the whips and others who put them in of that now.

4. to the Minister for Women: In light of today being International Women’s Day, what work is she progressing to break biases towards women?

Happy International Women’s Day. The theme of International Women’s Day today is “Break the Bias”. Today, I’m calling on all of us to reflect that research shows around 80 percent of the gender pay gap is caused by factors such as conscious and unconscious bias. That means we all have a role to play in breaking the bias and being responsible for our own thoughts and actions. Under Labour we’ve made good progress in closing the gender pay gap in the Public Service. It’s at the lowest it’s ever been at 8.6 percent, down from 9.6 last year. The Government’s eliminating the gender pay gap, and the Public Service action plan is implementing actions and milestones towards eliminating the gender pay gap in the Public Service. I’m also progressing work to see those gains in the private sector pay gap with Māori, Pacific, disabled, and ethnic women.

💬 Arena Williams: How else is the Government leading by example to break the biases women face?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: The Government appoints people to over 430 State sector governance boards and committees. The Government has met its target of 50 percent women’s participation on public sector boards with 50.9 percent of appointed members being women as of December 2020, the highest ever proportion achieved. Equal representation of women in governance, leadership, and parliamentary roles breaks biases, inequality, and discrimination.

💬 Arena Williams: What work is under way to reduce barriers for women in the labour market?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: As a Government, we are committed to ensuring our economic plan is a plan that works for women and, in particular, includes the most vulnerable groups of women. I’ve been working with Cabinet colleagues on a cross-Government approach that addresses the intermediate impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on women as part of the Government’s wider COVID-19 economic recovery programme. This has culminated in the development of New Zealand’s first ever Women’s Employment Action Plan, a dedicated plan to embed medium- and long-term changes. When the employment action plan is completed, it will be about more than simply jobs. It’s also about reducing barriers, increasing access to childcare, and providing training and support for women in business and entrepreneurship. We can create a future free from gender pay discrimination.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree that New Zealand has a cost of living crisis; if not, why?

I acknowledge that there is considerable pressure on household budgets at the moment from inflation caused largely by global factors. I don’t agree with the member’s characterisation. What the world is experiencing, what forecasters are telling us, is a spike in headline inflation primarily driven by global issues like supply chain disruptions as ports are closed due to COVID-19 and from global oil prices, which has now been exacerbated by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It’s worth noting that quarterly inflation was lower in the December quarter compared to September at 1.4 percent compared to 2.2 percent and is projected by the Reserve Bank to continue trending downwards. This sees annual Consumers Price Index (CPI) inflation peaking in the March quarter and then falling across 2022 and 2023.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he agree with the Prime Minister, as reported by Newshub, on the cost of living that “While things are bad now, they are expected to improve soon.”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I just said to the member, the forecasts from the Reserve Bank and others are that inflation will peak in the March quarter and then fall across 2022 and 2023. That does not in any way undermine the fact that for many households, it is tough when there are rising prices. That’s why this side of the House has supported those on low and middle incomes, with things such as increases to benefits and the minimum wage—opposed by the National Party.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: On what basis does he expect New Zealand’s cost of living crisis to improve soon?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On the basis of a number of forecasts that indicate that while inflation will spike up and is spiking up, there will be a reduction in that over the course of 2022 and 2023.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: With banks predicting inflation may go to 7 percent or higher and the Reserve Bank signalling consistent interest rate hikes over the next couple of years, isn’t the chance of New Zealand’s cost of living crisis improving soon very low?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I’ve said now three times in my answers, the forecasts that we have from the Reserve Bank and the Treasury are to see that the CPI inflation will begin falling across 2022 and 2023. No one is underestimating that this is a challenging period for many households and indeed for New Zealand when we are faced with the global supply chain constraints that we are and the rising cost of oil. What a Government can do in the face of this is look after the most vulnerable, our low and middle income earners. That is what the Government is doing. Also, a Government that has overseen wage increases outstripping inflation in the period leading up to this time. This Government stands by our record in that regard.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Given rents are up $140, food prices more than 13 percent, petrol is hitting $3 a litre, the real wages are now going backwards under his Government’s watch, don’t New Zealanders need meaningful tax relief at Budget 2022?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What New Zealanders need is a Government that has the consistency to look after them, to make sure that we invest in supporting those on low and middle incomes, to make sure we see jobs created so that the way that people have money in their pockets is through wages and higher wages. The kind of proposals that the member is supporting not only will be inflationary right now but they also will mean that we underinvest again in health and education, as he did the last time he was in office.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: In light of the upcoming Budget’s historic $6 billion in new spending, why can’t a portion of it go on tax relief to hurting New Zealanders as the cost of living crisis continues to worsen?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The problem that the member has is that his proposal’s not just about this Budget, because his leader said on the weekend that this approach that they want to take to taxation will now continue into future Budgets, which means it has to be priced in there, which means there will be further cuts in public services or higher debt. The member is falling into the same trap of his predecessors. He can’t have all three things happening at once—taxes going down, debt going down, and spending staying the same or going up. And I would note, the member has spent several weeks telling me that I shouldn’t have a $6 billion one-off operating allowance in Budget 2022. And now he wants to spend all of it. He should try to be a bit more consistent.

Question No. 6—Tourism

6. to the Minister of Tourism: What announcements has he made about supporting communities to develop local tourism facilities?

Last week, Associate Minister Henare and I announced a further $16.5 million funding round through the Tourism Infrastructure Fund. As we prepare for the return of international tourists and increasing numbers of Kiwis coming home, we are aware of the pressure many communities faced with visitor numbers prior to the global COVID-19 pandemic. The Tourism Infrastructure Fund supports local councils, especially those with small ratepayer bases, to develop much-needed tourism infrastructure. These sorts of tourism assets and facilities are vital if we want to protect and enhance our “100% Pure” brand and our reputation for offering quality experiences.

💬 Rachel Brooking: Why is the Government investing in councils’ tourism infrastructure?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: Tourism is hugely important to the economy. We need quality infrastructure and facilities so all can enjoy our wonderful country. Our investments are proof of our commitment to stand beside local communities to co-fund important tourism infrastructure that many small towns and districts cannot afford by themselves. To date, the Tourism Infrastructure Fund has helped to fund more than 200 projects, from boat ramps to scenic coastal walkways, essential waste-water plants, wharves, and more. The last funding round had a particular focus on the five South Island regions most affected by the absence of international tourists: Queenstown, Wānaka, Fiordland, Aoraki / Mount Cook, Mackenzie district, Kaikōura, and the West Coast and its glacier region.

💬 Rachel Brooking: How will this funding round help New Zealanders celebrate Matariki?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: This year’s funding round will have a special emphasis on physical infrastructure to support our unique new mid-winter public holiday marking Matariki. Matariki will be our first public holiday that recognises Te Ao Māori and will be an occasion that is uniquely ours, starting this year on 22 June. Now is the time to start planning to promote Matariki to the world. Councils are encouraged to put real thought into infrastructure they want as part of a growing focus on the significance of Matariki, celebrating our newest public holiday.

Question No. 7—Housing

7. to the Minister of Housing: Does she have confidence in the leadership of Kāinga Ora; if so, who, if anyone, has been held accountable for its decision to use taxpayer funds to publish an election-year advertisement featuring a soon-to-be-announced Labour Party candidate?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In regard to the OneRoof article, I made it clear to Kāinga Ora that it did not meet my expectations of Public Service neutrality, and that’s why I communicated to them on 3 August to convey that the conduct did not meet those expectations for how Kāinga Ora should operate. It’s also why I asked the Public Service Commissioner to investigate on 11 November, when I became aware of another example of minimisation within Kāinga Ora in relation to this matter. On that same day, I made it crystal clear to both the chair and the chief executive of Kāinga Ora that the organisation was not meeting my expectations about how seriously it needs to take its duty on public sector neutrality.

In answer to the second part of the question, as is appropriate, I am holding the board accountable to ensure that nothing like this happens again. I note that in his report, the Public Service Commissioner found that Kāinga Ora now fully accepts that its response should have been handled better, has provided evidence of improvements in its training and processes, and has acknowledged that there is further work to be done. I expect Kāinga Ora to improve the culture of understanding of how it is part of the broader Public Service and what that means for staff employed within the organisation. And I will be receiving regular reporting of this work. The chair has indicated to me that he and the board are fully committed to meeting this expectation.

💬 Nicola Willis: Well, does she think it’s acceptable that, despite her communication in August that it hadn’t met her expectations, when these issues hit the media in November, a senior general manager at Kāinga Ora said in an email to his colleagues—that I’ve obtained, and I quote—“I don’t like the implication of apology from us when we did no wrong.”?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I have been clear throughout, I was not satisfied with the way that Kāinga Ora handled this situation—it is why, as soon as I saw a series of emails, I asked the Public Service Commissioner to investigate this matter.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does she continue to have confidence in the chief executive of Kāinga Ora when even after she has made her expectations crystal clear he wrote to the senior communications adviser at the heart of this matter stating—and I quote from his email—“As I am sure you will have been told, the judgment call you made was fine, […] I am happy to stand behind you on it. This little maelstrom will pass quickly, I just hope it doesn’t make you too risk averse!”?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes, I do have confidence in the chief executive. I also have confidence in the report produced from the Public Service Commissioner, who said, in paragraph 45—and I noted this—“We considered that late last year Kāinga Ora was still maintaining a position that minimised the issues and contained some errors about key facts, demonstrated a misunderstanding of the principle of political neutrality at all levels within the organisation, and how it should have operated in this context. That is no longer the case. Kāinga Ora now fully accepts that its response should have been handled better, has provided evidence of improvement in training and processes, and has acknowledged there is further work to be done, which it is committed to following through.” I asked for this to be investigated, and I take the conclusions of that investigation seriously.

💬 Nicola Willis: Was the chief executive of Kāinga Ora correct to say in an email of 11 November that “The key issue for the Minister is the comments in your emails rather than the decision per se.”?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What the chief executive was conveying to a staff member, I expect, was that I took issue with some of the language that was used in emails that I saw as a result of an Official Information Act (OIA) request that came across my desk. As soon as I saw that Official Information Act request, I contacted Kāinga Ora and let them know that it was well below my expectations, and that it simply was impossible to un-know something once it was known. I do note, however, that that member sat on that OIA for several weeks before she did anything about it.

💬 SPEAKER: Does the member want a supplementary?

💬 Nicola Willis: Yes, thank you.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the member might ask her colleagues to be quiet.

💬 Nicola Willis: Why does Andrew McKenzie remain the chief executive of Kāinga Ora when he has failed to ensure his organisation understood basic standards of Public Service neutrality, and when, despite explicit warnings from her as Minister and the chairman of Kāinga Ora, he continued to stand by such obviously wrong decisions by his senior staff?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I have indicated in an answer to a previous question, I have confidence in the chief executive of Kāinga Ora, and I have further confidence reinforced from the report that I asked the Public Service Commissioner to carry out, who notes that there is clear evidence that there has been an improvement in processes. He notes that the chief executive and the management team have owned that this was not handled properly and—importantly for me—that they are focused on fixing this.

💬 Nicola Willis: Why did Helen O’Sullivan resign from the Kāinga Ora board in November, shortly after these issues became public and just nine months into the job, and does the Minister share my concern that O’Sullivan left because she no longer wanted to be associated with this failing organisation?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In answer to the second part of the question, I utterly reject the assertion that the member has made. I don’t have to make assumptions, because I was told by Helen O’Sullivan herself and communicated also through the chair that she’d accepted another board appointment that was in conflict with her role on the Kāinga Ora board.

Question No. 8—Workplace Relations and Safety

8. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Will he introduce a comprehensive pay transparency model to help eliminate pay discrimination before the end of this parliamentary term; if not, why not?

I thank the member for her question. The Government is committed to eliminating pay discrimination in Aotearoa New Zealand and making it easier for women to achieve pay equity. We’ve already made good progress towards these aims. We’ve passed the equal pay Act in 2020 to make it easier for women in female-dominated occupations to be paid fairly for the work they do, and we’re making good progress on settlements. We’ve championed the first ever Women’s Employment Action Plan, which has been taken forward by my colleague the Hon Jan Tinetti. I’m pleased to also confirm that we’ll be shortly introducing fair pay agreements, which will help women who are especially marginalised in the labour market to increase their wages. As the member will be aware, the Education and Workforce Committee will shortly be reporting the findings of its briefing into pay transparency back to the House. Following this, the Government will consider its response to the committee’s findings and assess the next steps for progressing this important work.

💬 Jan Logie: Does the Minister think it is equitable that in 2021, wāhine Māori were paid almost 25 percent less and Pasifika women 27 percent less than Pākehā men; if not, what new actions will he take to close this gap?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I don’t think that any reasonable person would consider that to be an equitable or a fair outcome. That’s why, in line with the comments in my primary question, I’ve outlined the fact that the Government has a broad-based programme to address these issues—the work we’re doing on fair pay agreements; the work we’re doing to lift the minimum wage, which will disproportionately benefit those in low-income occupations—and I will confirm, again, that the Government will be looking with great interest at the report of the select committee to consider what the next steps can be to make sure that we have genuine pay equity for all New Zealand workers.

💬 Jan Logie: Does the Minister agree that women, Māori and Pasifika, and disabled peoples will benefit from greater transparency, as studies have shown pay transparency decreases wage gaps on lower and middle incomes and helps career progression?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Yes, I’d broadly agree with the assessment that greater pay transparency does assist with pay equity, but I note that it’s not all that simple. There are countries that do have pay transparency arrangements where the gender pay gap is, in fact, wider than New Zealand’s is at the moment. One of the things that appears to be important from the research that I have seen on this matter is how a pay transparency regime is designed, and there are important questions to consider such as whether reporting and transparency is sufficient or whether there should be additional measures within the system to drive outcomes. Those are the sorts of questions that we’ll be considering in light of the select committee’s report.

💬 Jan Logie: Will his Government commit to ensuring all similarly sized organisations join those on New Zealand’s first pay gap registry, launched today?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I do take note of the pay gap registry that has been set up by Mind the Gap and announced today, and I think there’s something important for the House to note here, which is that while it is important for there to be leadership from the Government, there is also a very important role for private sector leaders—who employ most New Zealanders—to stand up and start taking action on this issue. I think the establishment of the registry is a good step. I would encourage organisations who want to deal better with pay equity issues to engage with it, and I again confirm my comments from earlier that the Government will be looking at the recommendations and views of the select committee to establish what further steps we can take.

💬 Jan Logie: Does the Minister expect to see legislation introduced this term in the wake of the select committee’s report, knowing that the Government committed to progressing pay transparency this term in July 2020?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As I have outlined, the Government is committed to this issue and is taking real steps to deal with this issue and make sure that we make progress on pay equity, and I note that we have made progress over our term of Government. The gender pay gap has dropped from around 12 percent in 2016, to 9.1 percent as of 2021. That’s not good enough. There is more work to be done, but what I would say to the member is that with an issue like this, we do want to do it properly. So there’s a strong level of commitment. We want to examine the evidence, we’ll examine the select committee’s report, and then we’ll make considered decisions that make sure that we advance towards the goal that we all agree with, which is pay equity and fairness for all New Zealand workers.

💬 Jan Logie: I seek leave to table a letter from the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway and Julie Anne Genter from July 2020, committing to progressing pay transparency as a Government.

💬 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.

Question No. 7 to Minister

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a document. It is an email from a general manager at Kāinga Ora to a senior staff member, including the quote “I don’t like the conclusion”—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member doesn’t need to quote it. The member needs to give the source of it. Is it an Official Information Act (OIA)—

I obtained this document under the Official Information Act.

💬 SPEAKER: So it’s been previously made public?

It’s not publicly available. I’ve obtained it under the Official Information Act.

💬 SPEAKER: Normally, when these things are made available under the Official Information Act these days, they are actually made generally available. If the member assures me that is hasn’t, I will put that to the House.

I’m certainly not aware it’s been made publicly available.

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

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

Can I seek leave to table another document?

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, of course the member can.

It’s a very big OIA, and these emails—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member has had her chance.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a document.

💬 SPEAKER: The member has just acted in a disorderly manner. She will apologise to the House.

I apologise, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: A point of order—Nicola Willis.

I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker. I have two—

💬 SPEAKER: I’m giving you a chance to seek leave without giving a running commentary.

OK. I seek leave to table a document. The document is an email from the chief executive of Kāinga Ora to senior staff at Kāinga Ora, and includes a quotation in which he says, “The judgment call you made was fine.”

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

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

Point of order, Mr Speaker. One more document.

💬 SPEAKER: A further point of order—I will give the member advice now. She could very easily have asked for leave to table the three documents, the quotations of which she referred to earlier. That would have been the orderly way of doing it. The member doesn’t need to quote from it—just the date, and from whom to whom.

The final document is an email from the chief executive of Kāinga Ora to senior staff relating to his conversation with the Minister of Housing.

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

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

Question No. 9—Immigration

9. to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by his statement that a humanitarian visa for Ukrainians with family members living in New Zealand is “not necessary”; if so, can he explain which visa those Ukrainian family members can apply for?

Yes, in the context in which it was given. Partners and dependents of Ukrainian nationals who are citizens or residents are able to apply for visas to travel to New Zealand to be with their families. As I have previously said, Immigration New Zealand have been giving priority processing of visas for Ukrainian nationals. And, furthermore, the Government today announced a fast-track border exemption that will enable Ukrainian nationals with a New Zealand visa the ability to travel here. For those Ukrainians in New Zealand on temporary visas that are set to expire this year, Cabinet has also agreed to an automatic extension to those visas for 12 months, given the dangerous situation for them at home. We also recognise that there are other family members of Ukrainian New Zealanders who may need to travel to New Zealand, and the Government is working through options that that could take. It is a distressing time for Ukrainians around the world and it is important to note that advice that we are receiving from international partners is clear that displaced Ukrainians want this conflict to end so they can return home.

💬 Erica Stanford: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary question was very clear and asked specifically for—can he explain which visa the Ukrainian family members can apply for, and he did not address that part of the question.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think, actually, he referred to three separate areas in which they could make an application and said that he was working on others as well.

💬 Erica Stanford: When wider family members like parents can only use the compassionate entry exceptions criteria of a critical purpose visitor visa, how can their applications be approved when those instructions were changed late last year to require the humanitarian crisis or family trauma to be occurring in New Zealand and explicitly not offshore?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: That is just one potential path that Ukrainian nationals can take. As I have said in the response to my primary answer, the Government is working through further options that it may take in order to assist further family members who are in Ukraine to come to New Zealand. We hope to come to a decision on that soon. There are other measures that people could take that the member is well aware of, that, in a humanitarian sense, some people can take at the moment.

💬 Erica Stanford: Why has he not been able to urgently create a simple, easy-to-use humanitarian visa for wider family members in the Ukraine instead of relying on an unfit-for-purpose existing visa that desperate Ukrainians can’t even find online let alone understand?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: What New Zealand wants is a Government that is compassionate, a Government that acts, and a Government that before it commits to something it does the work to make sure that it can deliver. We are acting around the decisions that we have announced already today, around the border exemption and the extension of visas to those Ukrainians here in New Zealand. And, as I say, the Government is working through more options and stands ready to act to make sure we can assist in the humanitarian effort to respond to what is happening in Ukraine at the moment.

Ricardo Menéndez March (remote): Will the Minister grant Ukraine visa waiver status, as Canada has done, to enable the prompt reunification of families and give safe passage for Ukrainians fleeing war?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: As I’ve mentioned in the primary answer and in the response to supplementaries, the Government is working through options to see what more it can do to respond to the Ukrainian situation. We want to make sure that we are responding in a way that is compassionate but also in a way that we know we’ve worked through the likes of eligibility and implications of any decision we make.

💬 Erica Stanford: What does the Minister say to Maria and Alex who appeared on TV1 Breakfast today, who are trying to get Maria’s elderly mother out of the Ukraine but could not find any application forms online and were unable to reach Immigration New Zealand on the phone because of long delays; and does he think he should be doing more to get wider family members to New Zealand urgently?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: To the last part of the member’s question, as I’ve said a number of times this afternoon, the Government is currently considering further options about what it can do to assist families who are affected by this situation in Ukraine.

💬 Erica Stanford: Why is it that other countries around the world are able to instigate humanitarian visas urgently to get desperate Ukrainian family members out of Ukraine when he is sitting on his hands, looking for more—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member knows that’s out of order. Does the member want a further supplementary? Erica Stanford.

💬 Erica Stanford: How can the Minister have said earlier in answer to my question that he knows very well I know of visa options for family members like parents when he then later stated in another question that he’s still working on those visas for wider family members?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The member knows in the most extreme of humanitarian situations that the likes of members of Parliament can apply for visas for individuals in those situations, and I will reiterate, as the member has in her question, the Government is working on further options as we do stand ready to ensure that we can respond to the humanitarian issues coming out of Ukraine.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. In granting leave for Nicola Willis to table some documents, some emails, just a few moments ago, the House received an assurance that those documents were not publicly available.

💬 SPEAKER: No, the House didn’t receive that. The member gave an assurance that to the best of her knowledge they weren’t. The fact that she’s wrong—if the member’s suggesting she’s wrong, then I think we shouldn’t take it any further. Members are quite often wrong in this House, and every time they’re wrong they shouldn’t be subject to a point of order.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking further to the point of order, it took me two minutes to discover that the member was wrong. If a member’s going to seek leave for a course of action, surely there is an obligation on them to make sure that they’re on solid ground before they seek leave and before they indicate to the House that they want to take particular course of action that requires the unanimous consent of the House in order for that to happen.

💬 SPEAKER: I think what the member knows is absolutely right, and what this member may learn, or other members should learn from this, is that if they want members to accept them tabling documents in the future, they should make sure that they do not mislead the House, as the member did albeit through ignorance and not deliberately.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, you’ve just said the Minister has misled the House through ignorance. Have you checked the facts that those documents are publicly available before making that assertion?

💬 SPEAKER: No, I haven’t. I rely on the word of the Leader of the House, something which I find I can do, unlike some other members.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order. Was what you just said an insinuation that you can’t rely on my word, and if so, can you give an example of that?

💬 SPEAKER: No, it wasn’t, but if the member feels guilty he might want to.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I just want to make it clear I don’t feel guilty at all but you often go well beyond your brief with those kinds of insinuations and that’s why—

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

David Seymour:—it needs to be called out.

💬 SPEAKER: The member will leave the House.

David Seymour withdrew from the Chamber.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order. It’s a well-established principle of this Parliament since the establishment of the Parliament that all members are honourable and the words they say in this House are to be taken with the degree of honour that the words are appropriate for, for members who are in this House. Is it now your position that you can rely more on the words of the Leader of the House than other members, and if so, why is that and would you like to explicate for the House who those members that you can’t rely on are?

💬 SPEAKER: The member tempts me.

Question No. 10—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

10. to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent reports has he seen regarding competition in the retail grocery sector?

Today, the Commerce Commission released its market study into supermarkets. The report is clear: competition in the retail grocery sector is not working. Consumers could get better prices, range, and quality if competition was better. The commission found that there are a number of factors making it difficult for new entrants, including a lack of suitable sites for store developments and difficulties for retailers in obtaining competitively priced wholesale goods. The report also found that profitability is high. Even in its most conservative scenario, the report shows supermarkets deriving excess profits of $1 million each day across New Zealand. From today, we will immediately progress work to address the commission’s findings.

💬 Naisi Chen: What recommendations does the Commerce Commission make to ensure New Zealanders benefit from a more competitive grocery market?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The commission makes a number of recommendations, which include exploring how a code of conduct between major retailers and suppliers could be developed, and looking at the establishment of a grocery regulator. The commission’s findings also indicate that restrictive covenants over land are a major barrier to rival supermarkets accessing new sites, so I want to ban these covenants from being used to stop competition. Given the importance of achieving healthy levels of competition in our retail grocery sector, I have not ruled out some of the other options that the Commerce Commission tabled while developing its report if consumer benefit is not achieved from the changes recommended in the report.

💬 Naisi Chen: What reaction has he seen in response to the market study?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: John Duffy of Consumer New Zealand said that many of their 10 big fixes to the grocery sector—such as a mandatory code of conduct, a supermarket commissioner, a ban on restrictive land covenants, and mandatory unit pricing—are reflected in the final report. I’ve also seen reaction from Katherine Rich of the Food and Grocery Council, who said the report accurately reflects the reality faced by suppliers from the imbalance of power in negotiations. She also states that the supermarkets have already made concessions not on the table prior to the market study. I do acknowledge there have also been reports that say the Commerce Commission could have gone further. That’s why I’ve left all options on the table so we’re doing all we can to ensure New Zealanders are getting a fair price at the checkout.

Question No. 11—Housing (Public Housing)

11. to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and actions related to the rental market, and does she believe renters are better off now compared to 2017?

on behalf of the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): On behalf of the Associate Minister of Housing, in answer to the first part, yes, in the context in which they were made. In answer to the second part of the question, we know that the rental market is under pressure right now and that some people are doing it tough, but there are a number of ways in which renters are better off since 2017. Firstly, the Government has introduced measures to improve household incomes, including increasing Working for Families tax credits and raising both the minimum wage and benefit rates; indexing benefits annually to increases in wages; and increasing the accommodation supplement from 1 April 2018. Secondly, the Government has taken steps to improve life for renters, and this includes implementing the healthy homes standard, limiting rent increases to one per year, prohibiting landlords from seeking rental bids, banning letting fees, improving security of tenure by abolishing no-cause terminations—and these are in addition to the measures the Government is taking to actually address the underlying causes of the housing crisis previous Governments shied away from. We know that the rental market is under pressure due to long-run under-investment in both public and affordable housing by previous Governments, and that’s why we are working to bring on new housing supply, which is the best way to get rents under control. This is evidenced by the slowing rents increases in Auckland, where there has been a higher concentration of new supply, to see that our strategy is starting to take effect.

Brooke van Velden: What impact, if any, does the Minister believe limiting interest deductibility will have upon tenants and their cost of living, when the average landlord’s tax bill is expected to go up $4,000?

The first point I’d like to make is that there is no evidence to show that any of the rules around interest deductibility have in any way driven rents increases. And I think we can just look at history to see that. So if we take the period from October 2017 to December 2021, we saw that rents rose 16.4 percent. I’d like to compare that from the period August 2013 to October 2017 under a National-ACT Government, where we also saw a rent increase of 16.4 percent. So I caution the member with conflating correlation and causation.

Brooke van Velden: Does the Minister believe that continuing with interest deductibility limitations, which Inland Revenue stated in September last year would “put upward pressure on rents”, can be justified now when inflation is at its highest level in 30 years?

On behalf of the Minister, I point the member to my previous answer—that there is simply no evidence that that is having upward pressure on rents, given that you can compare a period where there wasn’t such a regulation in place, where there was the exact same increase in rental prices in that period. We certainly are not going to take away measures that are about making it easier for first-home buyers; that has been an absolute priority for our Government, and one that we are committed to. I also point the member to the fact that, actually, what we have said to investors is “Please come and help us solve the housing crisis” by the fact that we have exempted new builds from this regime. What we want to see is more houses, because that is the quickest way to contain rental increases.

Brooke van Velden: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t believe the Minister actually addressed the question, because it was about the future going forward and continuing with interest deductibility and inflation going forwards.

💬 SPEAKER: I think she did address the question. Further supplementary.

Brooke van Velden: Does the Minister agree that there is a shortage of rental accommodation, and, if so, is she not concerned that Inland Revenue’s advice stated that interest deductibility limitations may “Reduce the supply of new housing developments in the longer term”, which would make it harder for tenants and push up rents?

On behalf of the Minister, what I do agree with is actually that we have had an undersupply of housing in New Zealand and that is why our Government has had a comprehensive suite of policies to address this very long-run problem. We can point to markets where we are seeing increased supply of housing coming on stream, seeing lower rates of rental increase. So if we look at January of this year, January 2022, the national Stats rents price increase increased by 0.7 from the previous month; in Auckland, it fell by 0.6 from the previous month. What we see across New Zealand is an annual 5.5 percent rent increase, but when we look at Auckland on its own, it is 3 percent. This is a market where the Government’s policies around increasing housing supply are really starting to come to fruition.

Brooke van Velden: Can the Minister accept that interest deductibility limitations for rentals will further increase the cost of renting at a time when new leases are over 5 percent higher on average than last year and inflation’s at a 30-year high; and, if not, what does she say to economists and renters who know it will?

On behalf of the Minister, I point the member again to the evidence of what we are seeing. We are seeing rent increases which are in line with previous periods in the not too distant past, which saw exactly the same rates of rents increases. So if we look at the evidence, that is not what we are seeing coming through. But we will continue to monitor what is happening there. I think that we have to make sure that we have a Government that is committed to building houses, whether that be rental accommodation, whether that be for owner occupation, and that also needs to include public housing, which this Government is fully committed to.

Brooke van Velden: A point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you. I don’t have any further supplementaries, but I was hoping to seek your guidance on the transfer of questions. This question originally was sent to the Prime Minister for question, which was then transferred to the Minister of Housing, which was then transferred to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing). Given the Minister of Housing is answering the question, I was hoping I could seek your guidance on transferring questions and passing the buck.

💬 SPEAKER: Sure, sure. The ability to transfer questions is something which is set out very well in Speakers’ rulings, and I suggest that the member have a look at it: the right of the Government to find the appropriate Minister to answer a question. That often goes to a matter of delegation and which Minister’s responsible under the delegations, which are tabled in the House. The Government finds a Minister. If that Minister is not available, then another Minister can answer on their behalf just as they can in normal times when members are absent from Wellington. So I understand it is a slightly convoluted system, but the ability to transfer, unless there is an exceptional reason not to, is one which is absolutely up to the Government.

Question No. 12—Health

12. to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent announcements has she made about improving abortion services?

Everyone should be able to access abortion information and care when they need it. To make that easier, last month I was pleased to announce the roll-out of a new national abortion telehealth service called Decide. This service will connect people to abortion information, advice, and counselling over the phone from health practitioners anywhere in the country.

💬 Sarah Pallett: Why do we need a national abortion telehealth service?

💬 Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: In-person care will always be offered for abortion, but it’s important that other options are available as well, where suitable. Telehealth makes it easier for people to reach the services and support that already exist, particularly those who find it difficult to visit a doctor or clinic. Currently, abortion telehealth services are offered by some district health boards, but not all. Expanding the service nationally is a huge step in improving access to abortion services.

💬 Sarah Pallett: How will this new service be rolled out?

💬 Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Decide will be rolled out in phases. Referrals and information about abortion services will be available from 26 April; follow-up care and abortion-related counselling from 1 July. The final phase set for November this year includes telemedicine, which means providing clinical consultations for an early medical abortion over the phone, and couriering medicines. As part of the telemedicine service, people will be able to immediately talk to a practitioner willing to provide abortion services, removing a key barrier for some people. All patients of this service will be part of active follow-up processes, and services will be available for free via the dedicated number 0800 DECIDE.