Oral Questions

1. to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: Does he stand by his statement in October 2021 that “We have ambitions to lift New Zealand’s marine protected area so that we get closer to that 30 per cent”; if so, when can New Zealanders expect to see new marine protected areas established to help us reach that target?

Yes, it is Government policy to seek protection of 30 percent of marine areas over time. I’m currently working with the Minister of Conservation to create 18 new marine protected areas in the Hauraki Gulf. This will increase marine protection in the region to almost 18 percent by area, an almost threefold increase. In addition to this, we are progressing a proposal to create 12 new protected areas proposed by the South-East Marine Protection Forum off the south-east of the South Island. The proposed marine protected area network covers 1,267 square kilometres, or 14.2 percent of the south-east region considered by the forum. We also remain committed to creating the Kermadec / Rangitāhua Ocean Sanctuary to protect one of New Zealand’s most biodiverse areas. The Government also plans to advance reform of the marine protected areas legislation. This is needed partly because the Marine Reserves Act only covers the territorial sea and not the exclusive economic zone, and partly because the Marine Reserves Act has rigid conservation measures that may not be appropriate for all marine protected areas.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: When can we expect to see any of those proposals actually established as marine protected areas?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Decisions in respect of the Hauraki Gulf marine protected areas are probably likely to be the first off the block, and decisions on that are expected to be made later this year.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: What steps is he taking to give effect to the kaitiakitanga of hapū and iwi such as Ngāti Kuri and Te Aupōuri in the marine environment, including around Rangitāhua?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: There has been engagement with all interested Māori groupings throughout the course of the last four years, since we’ve tried to bring to fruition the Rangitāhua / Kermadecs protection issue. It’s not constant with all iwi all of the time, but I am aware that another round of consultation is about to take place.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Will increasing the extent of marine protected areas in New Zealand waters include banning bottom trawling on seamounts, and, if not, why not?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, I suppose if the member wished to include reductions in the scope of areas that are subject to bottom trawling, the percentage that would be called marine protected areas in the Hauraki Gulf would be much higher than the 18 percent that I have already claimed. In respect of the effects of bottom trawling, we do have a separate piece of work that we’re engaging upon with the industry and environmental groups to advance those issues.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Does he stand by the Government’s oceans and fisheries work programme when there has been no apparent progress establishing new marine protection around Rangitāhua / the Kermadecs or on the South Island’s south-east coast, both of which are listed as key items in that initial work programme, and if he stands by that work programme, why?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: It’s not correct that no progress has been made.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Will he commit to establishing new marine protected areas at Rangitāhua and on the South Island’s south-east coast by the end of the current parliamentary term?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: We’re doing our utmost to achieve that.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement, “The debate is not whether inflation has increased and is impacting people. The debate is what we should do about it”; and if so, will she adjust the income tax brackets to account for the last four years of inflation?

I do stand by the statement. I also said, “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 … [which] will make around 346,000 families 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’ve 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.” Our Government is choosing to target support to those on low and middle incomes who need help the most through raising wages and increasing support. Families earning between $40,000 and $70,000 will benefit by an average of $21 per week through our proposed increase in the family tax credit rather than the Opposition’s proposal to cut taxes for property speculators and the highest earners.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that with prices rising twice as fast as wages, it’s clear we have a cost of living crisis under her Government in New Zealand?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I have consistently answered in this House: from the moment we took office, we worked very hard to ensure that we saw wages increase at a faster rate than inflation—and we did that. Right now, though, I absolutely accept that New Zealand, alongside the UK, alongside the United States, Scotland, Ireland, are all reporting the impact of the increase in the cost of living as a result of an increase in inflation—and add to that the war in Ukraine, which is putting pressure on energy prices. So we’re all experiencing that. The debate we’re having in this House is whether or not a cut to the top tax rate, as the member is proposing, which would come at a cost of $600 million, is the answer, or whether or not, as we propose, continuing to support low and middle income earners across a range of areas is the answer.

💬 Christopher Luxon: How does she reconcile her claim that she’s just made—that wages have grown faster than prices under Labour—when, actually, since she became Prime Minister, we’ve had total inflation of 11.5 percent but total wage growth of less than 9 percent?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because since quarter one of 2018, wages have increased at an average annual rate of 3.5 percent and Consumers Price Index inflation has averaged 2.2 percent over the same period. What we’re, of course, acknowledging is the experience we’re having right now—as a result of the simultaneous COVID recovery that is going on around the world, the extra demand, the shortages in supplies, supply constraints, and, add to that, a war—is causing a range of pressures for households. We are committed to continuing to try and ease that pressure—1 April, you see those family tax credit changes; 1 April, you see the increase in the minimum wage; and in May, you see the winter energy payment. In contrast, the Opposition is proposing for some of those families to get a grand total of $2.15 whilst top-income earners would receive a substantial tax cut.

💬 David Seymour: If the Prime Minister believes that the National Party’s proposed tax cuts would be inadequate for helping middle New Zealand deal with a cost of living crisis, would she then consider ACT’s proposal of cutting the middle-income tax rate, affecting those on $48,000 to $70,000, giving the average working family $2,000, or $40 a week, more in the pocket?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, our proposals around the family tax credit changes—as I’ve said—for many of those low and middle income earners, outstrip what has been proposed by National and doesn’t, at the same time, come at the great cost of reducing the taxes for the highest-income earners, which inevitably means then you see cuts to things like health and education. But what I would point out to the member is that he’s not only proposed, as he said, changes for middle income earners; he is also proposing changes that will see costs increase for them in other areas. We are not. We want free lunches in schools, we want under-14-year-olds to still be able to go to the doctor for free, we want to see a continued investment in healthcare. Those are all things the member’s policies do not support.

💬 David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister saying that if ACT can demonstrate it’s possible to give the average family $2,000-plus in tax relief without reducing health or education spending, then she would support it, and, if not, why not?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m merely pointing out that the member’s policies include cutting KiwiSaver support, first-home buyer grants, everything as well—our investment in research and development through Callaghan, the investment we’ve made in regional jobs through the Provincial Growth Fund. The member even proposes getting rid of the Ministry for Women. So no, I don’t support his policy proposals.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does the Prime Minister agree that for a family with two parents earning the average wage, an increase in their living costs of $5,000 in one year is absolutely a cost of living crisis; and, if not, what would she call it?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member has continued to have a debate where there is none. We of course have acknowledged the increases that families are experiencing at this point of time. I think perhaps the reason the member is choosing not to hear my answers on that is because he does not wish to have a discussion over whether or not he is still promoting the policy he introduced to the country on Sunday when he said, for instance, “My commitment is I’ll reverse Labour’s tax policies. National will repeal each of these new taxes.” On Newstalk later, he said, “We’ll reverse them when we get into power in the first term.” On Wednesday, he said, “What we’re saying is in principle we’re going to remove the tax increases.” I’m happy to have a debate with the member if he will choose to stick with a policy proposal we can actually debate.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why won’t she adjust that same family’s tax brackets for inflation so they actually get to keep more of what they earn, given they’ve faced an increase in their living costs of $5,000 in the last year?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I’ve said, we have chosen to take a much more focused approach on supporting families, and I’ve already given the examples of where, on 1 April, the changes that we’d make for the family tax credit for many families would far outstrip that member’s proposals and would not come at the cost of a fiscal hole that means National would not be able to fund adequately our health services and our education services. They also sit alongside, for instance, free doctors visits for under-14-year-olds; making sure that we have, for instance, 200,000 children getting free lunches in schools; for instance, the winter energy payment—the number of things that we have done across the course of our time in office where if the Opposition were in charge, they would simply not be able to continue because none of their policies add up.

💬 Christopher Luxon: What is the Prime Minister’s response to the 1.6 million Kiwis earning $48,000 or more who would get an average gain of $820 in tax relief if her Government adjusted the tax brackets for the record inflation of the last four years?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I have said with examples in this House before, if you take a person earning $55,000 per year who may have children, they would receive an average of $21 per week under the proposals that we have that come in on 1 April. Under National’s proposals, it’s $15. Someone on $150,000 under National’s proposals are nine times better off than someone around the $40,000 mark. It demonstrates that again we have a different set of priorities here. We want to support our low and middle income families, whereas on that side of the House they want tax cuts for those who are in the wealthier bracket. And my other message to those families would be that they must also ask themselves the question how National would fund the other priorities those families have. I quote from a report I see today: “This is a problem for the party as the 2024 Budget, which would be National’s first budget should [they] win [an] election, currently has only $3 billion of new operating spending allocated to it. This would be totally absorbed by the tax package, unless National plans to deliver no new services, or cut spending elsewhere.”

💬 Christopher Luxon: Doesn’t she think that people on the average wage—the tradies and the hairdressers—deserve a break; and, if not, why won’t she adjust their tax brackets at the Budget to give them some relief from the cost of living crisis?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said and repeated in this House multiple times and again today, I’ve talked about the efforts that we are making in that space, and I would also, again, highlight that, as I said yesterday, whether or not it’s a new teacher, we’ve seen an increase since our time in office of them receiving an additional $227 a week, if you take an example of a teacher with family. If you take the example of someone working 30 hours at a minimum wage with kids, $336 better off. If you take, for instance, a primary school teacher, $11,000 better off; a nurse, $16,000. These far outstrip the examples that the member has presented in this House, by some margins, and none of those changes the member would be able to commit to in office because he has a massive fiscal hole.

Question No. 3—Finance

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

The construction sector is continuing to support the economy. Yesterday, Statistics New Zealand reported the volume of building activity jumped 8.9 percent in the December quarter, more than offsetting the 8.4 percent decline in the previous period, due to the Delta outbreak. Residential construction rose 5.2 percent, while industrial and commercial building activity increased 16 percent. Stats New Zealand also reported last week that annual building consents issued for January rose 22 percent to 48,707 compared with the previous year. Economists are continuing to expect momentum in the construction sector, despite the challenging environment that it is operating in.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What support is available for businesses as the economy deals with the challenges of Omicron?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government has responded with the new targeted COVID support payment which will help viable but vulnerable businesses through the peak of Omicron. So far, this payment has paid out $280.51 million to 56,775 applicants. On a regional basis, Auckland has received 56 percent of the payments by amount going to business, followed by Christchurch on 8 percent, and Wellington on 7 percent. I would also note that sole traders make up nearly half of the amount that has gone out—a distinction of our scheme in New Zealand, where we’ve continued to support sole traders throughout this period. This is about providing cash flow and confidence to help protect jobs and support New Zealand businesses through this very difficult time.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What other reports has he seen on proposals to support economic activity?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have seen reports of proposals directed to me as the Minister of Finance that would propose cutting taxes and a range of other initiatives designed to fund transport and make housing more affordable. It’s important to note that such proposals would not be one-off but would be reflected into future Budgets. The effect of this on the New Zealand economy would be significant. For example, one proposal that I was asked to adopt by the Leader of the Opposition would wipe out the whole of the Budget 2024 allowance, leaving no room for spending on health, education, housing, or other investments.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that the Government has “no intention” of giving tax cuts; and if so, why?

I stand by my statement in its full and proper context, which is that the Government’s focus during this period and in the upcoming Budget is on making sure that we support those in low and middle income households to get through this period of time, whilst also continuing to invest in important parts of the New Zealand economy and society such as our health system, our education system, and in housing. It is my view that untargeted tax cuts are not the best use of money right now. Instead, we need to be investing in long-term challenges that are facing New Zealand in the form of healthcare, climate change, and affordable housing, and supporting people through the current rises in the cost of living.

💬 Damien Smith: Does the Minister accept that taxes taken per person by this Government and grabbed from their household budgets have risen by $2,138, even when adjusted for inflation, and, if not, why not?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I accept is that this Government campaigned on increasing the top tax rate from 33c to 39c. We have certainly seen more people in work and more people earning higher wages during that period of time. It is important for any Government to make judgments in a given period of time as to what their priorities are. What we have had to face is the fact that the whole world has had a COVID-19 pandemic, and members of the Opposition might like to reflect on the fact that they not only, at times, supported the wage subsidy scheme and the COVID-19 Support Payment but actually asked us to go further and spend more. We believe we’ve got the balance right.

💬 Damien Smith: So does the Minister believe people who have appeared in the media recently who say their household expenses have increased by $5,000 to $7,000 per annum, and, if so, can he understand why they would see these circumstances as a real crisis?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I’ve said both today and yesterday in the House, and the Prime Minister has repeated it again today in the House, there is considerable pressure on a number of households from the rising cost of living. That rising cost of living is driven by inflation, many of which of the causes are out of the control of the Government. What is in control of the Government is making sure that we continue to support those families—particularly those on low and middle incomes—through initiatives such as, as the Prime Minister has said today, the increase in the family tax credit, which will deliver considerably more to those middle-income households than the kinds of tax cuts the member is proposing.

💬 Damien Smith: So what is wrong with letting the average earner keep over $2,000 more of their own money to battle rising prices under ACT’s policy, or does he believe we can grow our way out of these challenges, effectively?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The difficulty for the member is that these things don’t happen in a vacuum. If the decision was taken to adopt the ACT Party’s policy as he has just articulated, that would mean considerable trade-offs, including cutting very important parts of our social security safety net, as well as very important parts of the Government’s work programme. There are no easy choices when you’re in Government. We believe we’ve got the balance right.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Minister of Finance confirm that essential workforces like our nurses and our teachers, who have received significant pay increases under this Government, got that after nearly a decade in which their salaries remained relatively stagnant?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, I can confirm that, and that is one of the issues that this Government has had to face on coming into office. [Member interjects] It was not only the chronic underfunding of the health sector but also the fact that the wages of those in the health and education sectors had slipped so far behind. As the Prime Minister indicated in her answers both yesterday and today, we’ve seen significant lifts in teachers’ salaries and in nurses’ salaries. We believe that is an important thing to do, but we have to be able to pay for it, and if we have parties advocating large-scale tax cuts, they won’t be able to do that.

💬 SPEAKER: Before I call Damien Smith, which member interjected while Chris Hipkins was asking his supplementary? It was a member, I think, in that quartile somewhere.

💬 Damien Smith: Does the Minister believe that under ACT’s tax policy, nurses and teachers would be better off?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I don’t, for the reasons that I’ve articulated. While the member might like to propose in a vacuum a particular tax cut, it has to be set in the context of everything else that a Government is required to do, and those teachers and those nurses want to make sure that they’re in good quality hospitals, that they’re teaching in good classrooms, and that they’re supported to do their work. That is what we are doing.

💬 Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Does he believe nurses would support ACT’s policy that all of the decisions taken to try and keep COVID away from New Zealanders for as long as possible was actually the wrong decision, and they would have rather traded lives instead?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Even at a stretch, that doesn’t come within this Minister’s responsibility.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Would it be possible for a Government to give pay increases to essential workforces like teachers and nurses if the entire new spending allowance in Budget 2024 was given out in tax cuts?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely not, and that is the issue here for those who are proposing tax cuts which they say are about one Budget. The reality of Government accounting is that that carries on, and if we’re going to go around slashing all of the other things that have been proposed by the Opposition, then, in Budget 2024, there won’t be a single cent in new operating spending for paying teachers and nurses more.

Question No. 5—Corrections

5. to the Minister of Corrections: Does supporting a person to have a bank account upon release from prison help them to reintegrate into society; if so, how?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member, I’m going to ask Dr Henderson to read the question as it is written down, especially the name of the Minister.

My apologies. How does supporting a person to have a bank account upon release from prison help them to reintegrate into society?

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My understanding is that that is not actually the question. The question is “Does supporting a person to have a bank account upon release from prison.” Because I think you might have changed it, because the—

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, yes, I take responsibility for the changing, but I’m saying to the whips it’s their responsibility to make sure that members asking the questions are told when it’s changed.

💬 Chris Bishop: I mean it’s a patsy question, it’s not that hard to get right. You literally email it, and then she just stands up and reads it. I’m happy to provide a tutorial if—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I think we’re not for the days for tutorials on that sort of thing. Now—I think we’ve got the gist of the question. It’s one of the problems of operating remotely. The Hon Kelvin Davis.

Mr Speaker—

💬 Hon David Bennett: They can’t even ask a question properly.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The Hon Mr Bennett will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Recently, Corrections implemented the Bank Accounts Upon Release scheme, or New Start. This scheme was piloted in 2020 with phased roll-out to all prison sites concluding in late 2021, and is a core part of our Hōkai Rangi strategy where the sixth pou states, “People released from the care of Ara Poutama Aotearoa have the necessary life skills, levels of education, and tools for full participation in society.” It may sound like a small thing, but this support means that when a person leaves prison they should be able to walk out with the tools necessary to immediately access their funds, which is a core step in removing barriers to reintegration and increase their likelihood of living safe and offence-free in the community.

💬 Dr Emily Henderson: What reports has the Minister seen that support this implementation of the New Start scheme?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I’ve seen a report from Westpac New Zealand, where the head of consumer operations said, “New Start helps give prisoners the best chance possible of resuming normal life.” They went on to say, “A bank account is like a passport to the economy, which is why inclusion in the banking system is so important. Without one it’s hard to get a job, pay the rent, receive a benefit or do many of the other things we take for granted in our lives.”

💬 Dr Emily Henderson: Is the Minister aware of any previous prisoners who support the initiative?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes, there’s been reporting of a prisoner who was in Tongariro Prison who accessed the scheme. This person was bound to have difficulties with regards to getting a bank account on his own because he had previously had three names, no birth certificate, and no photo ID. He said about the scheme, “It was a good feeling knowing that I had a bank account to go out to. It changes everything for me.”

Question No. 6—Finance

6. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement yesterday that it’s a “challenging period for many households”; if so, will he use a portion of his operating allowance in Budget 2022 for tax relief?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes, I continue to acknowledge that many households are feeling under greater financial pressure as we work through this period of elevated inflation. In answer to the second part of the question, I would, firstly, note the member’s agreement that the operating allowances for Budget 2022 are at an appropriate level after he has spent the first part of this year demanding that the allowances be reduced. I do stand by my statement that global inflationary pressures, recently exacerbated by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, mean this is a challenging period. In terms of using the Budget 2022 allowances to help address some of this pressure, I am pleased to inform the member that we have done just that through a pre-commitment that funds the family tax credit increases the Prime Minister and Minister Sepuloni announced late last year. From 1 April this year, 346,000 families will be better off by an average of $20 per week as a result. I would also point out to the member that the billions of dollars of policies his leader has announced do not just affect Budget 2022; they still have to be paid for in future Budgets, which do not have the one-off increase in Budget allowances that we have this year. What this means is it would wipe out all of the Budget 2024 new-spending allowance, which the member would have to explain if he ever ended up in that position.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Shouldn’t meaningful tax relief for wage earners be an urgent priority when inflation is running at 5.9 percent and wage growth at only 2.6 percent, so that, on average, New Zealanders’ real wages are going backwards right now?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The issue for the member is what constitutes meaningful tax changes when we have got a worker getting $2 as a result of the changes that the member is replacing. I repeat what I said in my answer to an earlier oral question: there are no easy decisions when you’re in Government; it is always a matter of balancing different needs. It is important that we support people through increases in the cost of living at the same time as investing in health, education, housing, and other essential items.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is the Minister really telling us that we’re not giving out too much or proposing to, but also that our policies cost too much? And if $1.7 billion is wrong, what does he say the true cost of tax indexation in the first three income tax brackets actually is?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, what I am saying is that the unfocused, untargeted approach that the member is promoting—that would benefit those on the highest incomes—is not the appropriate approach to be taking now, and what I am also saying is that the kind of tax changes proposed by the member’s leader do not just stop in Budget 2022; they carry on and, on the numbers given out by the member’s leader on the weekend, would wipe out the entire new operating allowance for Budget 2024, meaning there would be no money to spend on health, education, or housing that is new.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Shouldn’t meaningful tax reform for workers be on his agenda today given that his Government’s minimum wage changes on 1 April will mean that someone on the minimum wage who works 44 hours a week is set to face a marginal tax rate of 30c in the dollar and many believe we’re in a cost—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Two legs to supplementaries, not three or four.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said, this Government has made the decision on behalf of New Zealanders to get a balance in our approach to the Budget. That means supporting people, for example, through the family tax credit changes that will put money into their pockets whilst, at the same time, knowing that we have to continue to invest in health, in education, and in housing. What the Opposition is proposing will mean tax cuts that, effectively, make inequality worse, that mean congestion in Auckland will get worse, and that mean it will be harder for first-home buyers. That’s their decision, but that is not one the Government is taking.

💬 SPEAKER: Further supplementary?

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I apologise, Mr Speaker. I appreciate I was meant to do that through the system. Why can’t just a portion of the upcoming Budget’s historic $6 billion in new spending go on tax relief to hurting New Zealanders as the cost of living crisis continues to worsen?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m not sure if the member heard what I said in my primary answer, but Budget 2022 does indeed change family tax credits so that people in New Zealand—346,000 families—will be significantly better off. The Government has chosen to take a focused approach to supporting those on low and middle incomes to get through this period of time whilst continuing to invest in health, in education, and in housing. The member can’t have it both ways. He needs to explain what he would cut if he were to go ahead with the tax polices his leader announced on Sunday.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is the real reason he won’t prioritise tax relief because he believes he spends Kiwi workers’ money better than they do, and why won’t he trust Kiwi families to make good decisions with their own money?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, the reason we are doing this is that, on this side of the House, we understand that when Governments are faced with difficult choices, our job is to make sure that we look not only to the short term, to support those on low and middle incomes through this period of increased prices, but also to continue to invest in the health and the education and the housing sectors. The member’s party completely failed to do the latter when they were last in office, and we’re still making up for it now.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Minister of Finance believe that a tax cut package that gave a Cabinet Minister a $5,500 to $6,000 a year tax cut while the people cleaning that Minister’s office only got less than a cup of coffee a week from their tax cut would make a meaningful contribution to the rising cost of living?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It would be demonstrably unfair and unjust that that would be the case. It is also unfocused and untargeted at a time when the Government needs to strike a careful balance between keeping debt in check, making sure we support those in need, and investing in long-term issues.

Question No. 7—COVID-19 Response

7. to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What recent announcements has he made on New Zealand’s COVID-19 response?

Today I announced that the isolation period for COVID-19 cases and their household contacts will reduce from 10 days to seven days. This will come into effect from 11.59 p.m. on Friday. Household contacts will need to have a rapid antigen test if they become symptomatic during their isolation, or if they don’t get symptoms, they’ll be required to have a negative test at day 6, prior to ending their seven-day isolation period.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: What public health advice has he seen to support this decision?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We’ve received advice from the Ministry of Health on how to get the balance right between effectively controlling the current Omicron outbreak and the flow-on effect on essential goods and services. Omicron and its transmissibility has meant that many more positive cases are being detected, but many also have moderate or mild symptoms. Our high vaccination rates are also contributing to that. As case numbers have increased, we’re seeing large numbers of positive cases and their household contacts isolating. This is having a wider impact on many parts of our lives, including on our food supply chains and on businesses’ day-to-day operations. The public health advice was that the societal impact of a longer isolation period outweighs the public health risk associated with a shorter isolation period. This is in line with similar changes made in other countries and with increasing international evidence that people are most likely to transmit the virus earlier in their infectious period.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: What other announcements has he recently made on New Zealand’s COVID-19 response?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Today I also announced that quarter of a million Novavax vaccinations have arrived in the country and people can book these over the phone or online from tomorrow. While Pfizer remains the preferred COVID-19 vaccine for New Zealand, Novavax is now available for those people who would prefer or require an alternative. It’s available to people 18 and over only. It requires two doses, with a three-week gap between them. It has not yet been approved as a booster dose. People will be able to choose appointments at a limited number of sites. It won’t be available at every vaccination site around the country. Details are available on the Ministry of Health website.

Question No. 8—Housing

8. to the Minister of Housing: Does she have confidence that Kāinga Ora is effectively exercising its obligations as a public sector entity, including delivering value for taxpayers’ money?

Yes, I have confidence Kāinga Ora is effectively exercising its obligations as a public service entity. I stand by this Government’s actions to tackle the national housing crisis, including through the establishment of Kāinga Ora. I’m proud that Kāinga Ora has delivered over 9,000 warm, dry public-housing places since 2017, including building more than 7,000 brand-new-build public homes. This Government is building more homes than any Government since the 1970s. I’m also proud that through this build programme Kāinga Ora has supported over 500 apprentices. Our Government believes it’s the role of the State to invest to provide public and affordable housing, particularly during a national housing crisis. I do acknowledge that not every decision Kāinga Ora has made has met my expectations of a public service entity and I will continue to hold Kāinga Ora’s chair and board accountable, as is appropriate. I will be receiving regular reporting from the Kāinga Ora chair and board who are fully committed to meeting this expectation.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does she stand by her statement that on 3 August last year she “made it clear to Kāinga Ora that it did not meet my expectations of Public Service neutrality” in relation to its decision to publish a taxpayer-funded ad about a political candidate; and if she was clear, then why did the chief executive in an email some months later tell staff he would stand behind the judgment call to publish that article?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes, I do stand by that statement. I previously tabled in the House an email that my office sent on my behalf to Kāinga Ora on 3 August, making it clear that I was not satisfied with material that I had seen in an Official Information Act request. In terms of the email that the member is referring to, which was sent at 9.54 a.m. on 11 November, this was before I subsequently spoke to the chief executive at 12.30 on 11 November, followed by a phone call to the chair and then to the Public Service Commissioner. I do think the member is a bit confused about the sequence of events, and I would like to draw that member’s attention to paragraph 34 of the Public Service Commissioner, who makes it clear that in the course of undertaking his investigation, the email that she is referring to of 11 November was indeed used in that investigation.

💬 Nicola Willis: Why does she continue to have confidence in the chief executive of Kāinga Ora when he so clearly, as per that email, paid very little heed to her expectations of him; and when did she first learn of the email I read in Parliament yesterday?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In answer to the first part of the question, I think that I covered that off in answering a previous supplementary, and I think if the member carefully reads through the report, also in paragraph 34 of the Public Service Commissioner’s report, he notes that the chief executive was not adequately briefed on some of the material that is part of the findings of the Public Service Commissioner not only of a culture of minimisation but of too much devolving of responsibility in what has been rectified in there. The email, as I said, was sent at 9.54 a.m. That was prior to my conversation with the chief executive at 12.30 of that same day. So I think the member is incorrect to say that he sent that email after having communication with me. In regard to when I first became aware of the email of 11 November, that’s when I reviewed it in an Official Information Act request. It was sent to the member asking the question.

💬 Nicola Willis: Is she confident she can trust that Kāinga Ora’s chief executive will exercise better judgment over the $8.3 billion borrowing facility her Government has granted Kāinga Ora than it did over this matter, and what makes her think he takes her seriously now when he so clearly ignored her earlier warnings in August?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I reject the premise of the member’s question. As I’ve outlined in previous answers to supplementaries, the chain of events the member is trying to put together simply do not stack up when the facts are considered in terms of time lines. In terms of why I have confidence in Kāinga Ora to deliver value for money to this Government in terms of its build programme, I just need look at the evidence. If I have a look at the value that Kāinga Ora is giving the New Zealand taxpayer under our Government compared to what the much smaller Housing New Zealand was under the previous Government—if I have a look at the head count of staff per cost of construction, we can see that for the total annual residential construction spend by Kāinga Ora in 2017-18, it was 3.7 staff per $100 million. In 2021, that was down to 0.9 staff member per $1 million spend. This is not even taking account for the far expanded functions that Kāinga Ora had from the sell-off housing agency that Housing New Zealand had become under the previous National Government. So I look at the evidence in front of me, and that’s why I have confidence.

💬 Nicola Willis: Will she join me in asking that the Public Service Commission reopen its investigation into these matters, given the email I tabled in Parliament yesterday was first requested in November under the Official Information Act and was not released until more than three months later—strangely, on the day the Public Service investigation was published—and does she think this conduct meets the standard expected of a public sector entity in meeting its statutory obligations?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No, I won’t be joining with that member in calling for the investigation to be reopened, because I encourage that member to read the memo that the Public Service Commissioner produced last week. I direct the member to paragraph 34. There are three bullet points in that. It’s the third bullet point, and it’s sub bullet point 5. The final sentence of that clearly reads, “In associated email correspondence on 11 November, the chief executive indicated support for the judgement call to publish. He later clarified the agency would likely exercise its judgement differently in the future.” So I won’t be joining that member, because the Public Service Commissioner has already looked at the email.

Question No. 9—Transport

9. to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has the Government made on keeping New Zealanders safe on our roads?

I’m pleased to report that yesterday the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill completed its third reading. This legislation authorises random roadside drug testing, which aims to deter drug-impaired driving, leading to safer roads for all. Driving under the influence of drugs can result in preventable yet very serious harm. In both 2019 and 2020, over 100 people were killed in crashes where a driver was found to have drugs in their system. This is just one part of the Government’s Road to Zero strategy to save the lives of people on our roads. We want to see less deaths and serious injuries on our roads, and a 40 percent reduction target by 2030, and the passage of this legislation is a step in the right direction.

💬 Greg O’Connor: What response has he seen to the passing of the drug-driving bill?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: There’s been a very positive response. It was commented on by the Automobile Association as being “a significant step forward in road safety.” They said that “the introduction of roadside testing devices will not only be welcomed by the vast majority of drivers but also by many of the families that have lost loved ones because of a drug-impaired driver.” Drug-driving is a much more complex area than drink-driving, because of the range of substances involved and more variation in the ways that drugs can affect individuals, but the Government has come up with a well-balanced approach which, when implemented, will make our roads safer.

💬 Greg O’Connor: What other work is the Government progressing to make our roads safer?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Our Road to Zero strategy is part of a plan to build the safest road system we can, and work towards zero deaths and serious injuries by 2050 and a 40 percent reduction by 2030. We’re targeting all aspects of the transport system to get there and are investing $2.9 billion in Road to Zero activities over the next three years. This includes safer infrastructure, people into safer vehicles, safer speed limits, and an extensive record-breaking road maintenance programme, and we’re refocusing on targeted and effective police enforcement. The measures that are being introduced are internationally proven and have reduced deaths and serious injuries when they are systemically rolled out.

Question No. 10—COVID-19 Response

10. to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Has he seen the official advice regarding vaccine certificates which states, “There are also issues around maintaining social licence over the management of the pandemic and social cohesion. Over time, this measure may no longer be justifiable as vaccination rates increase and the public health rationale becomes diminished”, and has he received advice from officials on at what point vaccination certificates are no longer justifiable?

If the member’s referring to the joint briefing by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Ministry of Health that I requested and then subsequently proactively released on 10 December, then the answer to that first part of the question is yes. In answer to the second part of the question, the ongoing use of vaccination certificates continues to be a conversation with officials. We’ve yet to receive formal advice on when would be the right time to stop using vaccination certificates, but it continues to be something that we keep under active review.

💬 Chris Bishop: Has he been provided with advice from officials on the impact of the Yardley v Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety High Court decision on the legality of other vaccine mandates imposed by the Government; if so, what does the advice say?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Without getting into the specifics of the legal advice that has been provided to the Government, it is important to note that the Yardley decision, when read in totality, was actually a very narrow decision and cannot be applied to other vaccination mandate decisions.

💬 Chris Bishop: Does he agree that the utility of vaccine mandates are considerably diminished, given more than 95 percent of the eligible New Zealand population has now had two doses of the vaccine, and the impact of vaccination on transmission under Omicron is nowhere near what it was under Delta?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The use of vaccination requirements for certain workforces is something that the Government keeps under review. As I’ve previously indicated, it is possible that some workforces will find those requirements removed before others and will do that based on public health advice and based on a proportionate risk assessment as we make those decisions.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer (remote): Thank you, te Pīka. What support, if any, has Government given to whānau who lost their jobs due to mandates and Government vaccine certificates?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Many of the workforces covered by the vaccination requirements—so for people to continue to do those jobs they needed to be vaccinated—are in the public sector. The first course of action for those workforces was to find opportunities for redeployment. Where redeployment was not available, then people have been worked with to see whether there are other options available to them. Termination of their employment has only been used as an absolute last resort and people will have had plenty of time to work through that process. In terms of people in the private sector who may have been affected by that, there are supports available—for example, through the Ministry of Social Development.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does Government intend to support unvaccinated whānau to secure jobs once Government vaccine mandates have been lifted; if not, why not?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: My message to all of those whānau is that vaccination is safe, it is effective, and it is something that I would strongly encourage them to do. Of course, we’ll continue to look to support people into employment wherever we’re able to do that.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why are unvaccinated nurses who don’t have COVID unable to go to work in hospitals due to the mandate, while we’ve got to the point where vaccinated nurses who do have COVID are able to go to work?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In terms of the recent decision that was announced in the last couple of days around allowing people who have COVID-19 to work in our health system, it’s important to note that there are some very narrow parameters around where that could be applied. For example, where someone was COVID-positive and was working in a ward with COVID-positive patients, there may be a justified reason to have someone in there in order to ease the pressure on the rest of the workforce. Or where a surgeon was performing a life-saving surgery and they were the only person available to do that and without them doing that that person would die, there may well be a justified reason for that person to go to work. But it is not a blanket exemption that says that people in the health workforce should be going to work even if they have COVID-19.

Question No. 11—Customs

11. to the Minister of Customs: What initiatives are Customs providing to small-to-medium importers?

Ongoing supply chain disruption has meant many businesses in Aotearoa New Zealand are placing larger or more frequent orders for their products from overseas. This means they are having to make regular payments to Customs to stay within their credit limits. One initiative increases credit limits for low-risk small to medium enterprises so they can more easily import larger or more frequent shipments. Other initiatives include deferred payments, which allow businesses to defer their payments to Customs, including duties and GST charges.

Tāmati Coffey: How have businesses responded to this initiative so far?

💬 Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Insofar as the credit limit increases initiative, as of 11 February 2022, 7,268 small to medium importers have been notified of the credit limit increases, with 6,300 opting to take up this offer—an 86.6 take-up rate.

Tāmati Coffey: How does increasing imported credit limits support New Zealand’s economic recovery?

💬 Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: It is increasing the economic resilience of thousands of small to medium sized enterprises, enabling them to increase the number and volume of orders for their products or materials from overseas and providing certainty during a time when the supply chain is unsettled. Increasing credit limits has given businesses more breathing room with their cash flow, allowing them to pay for the essentials—like employee salaries—that keep enterprise afloat and the economy thriving.

Question No. 12—Workplace Relations and Safety

12. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What additional costs have been imposed on businesses, if any, as a result of Government decisions since November 2017 for which he is responsible, and what impact, if any, have those additional costs on business had on the cost of living?

I reject the premise of the member’s question that Government decisions have imposed costs on businesses that have contributed to the cost of living and I note that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s modelling indicates that the inflationary impacts of policies like minimum wage increases are very limited—and this was, in fact, modelled at just 0.12 percent this year. Our Government has sought to build a modern and fair workplace relations environment through policies like increasing sick leave entitlement to 10 days per year, increasing paid parental leave from 18 to 26 weeks, and increasing the minimum wage from $15.75 in 2015 to $21.20 in April of this year. The benefits of these policies are far-reaching—for example, a minimum wage worker working 40 hours a week in 2017, compared to 1 April this year, will receive $218 a week more and we’ve achieved that while keeping unemployment at record low levels. On this side of the House, we reject the outdated and binary view of workplace relations in which any investment in the workforce is seen as a negative for business. We believe that fair and decent conditions are a foundation for good workplace relationships and a productive economy.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is the Minister saying, or rejecting the idea, that increased costs to businesses inevitably flow through to costs to consumers?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I’m saying two things. One is I’ve given a very specific example of the fact that some of the costs that that member and his side of the House regularly cite, the minimum wage increase—which some of them have supported and some of them haven’t supported—this year was modelled at only having an inflationary impact of 0.12 percent, and as we’ve rolled out those increased minimum wage increases, we’ve brought unemployment down to a record low 3.2 percent, which is hardly evidence for it strangling businesses, as that side of the House claim every single year. Secondly, I’m making the point that as opposed to that side of the House, which always views investments in a better life for workers as a negative for businesses and the New Zealand economy, this side of the House actually has a view supported by plenty of international evidence that good terms and conditions for workers, good relationships between employers and unions, can actually lead to a better and more productive economy for everyone.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: So what does the Minister think happens? Government imposes higher costs on businesses and they magically absorb those costs with no impact on prices—is that what you think happens?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No, that is not what I think happens and I ask the member what he thinks should happen in reverse.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member does not ask the other member anything; he answers.

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No, that is not what I think happens. What I think happens in the economy and under the workplace relation settings of this Government is that we’ve ensured that workers do have a good minimum wage, we’ve ensured that workers do have a good minimum conditions like decent sick leave, and under that workers and businesses have worked productively together, we’ve delivered a growing economy, and we’ve delivered record low unemployment. It’s going pretty well and we’ll continue to pursue those policies that give workers a fair go, that look after the most vulnerable, and that bring workers and employers together to develop a fair and productive economy.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think all Kiwi workers deserve a 6 percent pay increase this year like those on the minimum wage have received; and if so, what impact does he think that would have on inflation expectations?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well, as I look around at the performance of some workers I don’t think that they probably do all warrant an increase at that level, Mr Goldsmith, but for the most part, we do believe that workers do deserve to receive fair compensation for their earnings. Of course, across our system, employers, workers, and unions will negotiate their particular employment relationships, but as far as the Government’s role is involved, we’ve been very clear that when it comes to the lowest-paid workers, those on our minimum wage, we will support a decent increase. These are the cleaners, the supermarket checkout workers, and the bus drivers who have got our country through COVID-19. That side of the House is prepared to see their living standards decline; this Government will support them.

💬 Simeon Brown: We’ll give you a pay cut next year.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Mr Brown will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Simeon Brown: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: Mr Goldsmith, despite all that noise, would you like another supplementary?

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept that with average wage growth for Kiwis of only 2.6 percent in 2021, and inflation running at 5.9 percent, the majority of Kiwis who are not on the minimum wage have been going backwards with their wages not keeping up with the rising cost of living?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: What I accept is that under this Government’s policies, wages, whether they are measured by average hourly earnings or average weekly earnings, have consistently outstripped increases in the cost of living, and that if we follow the policies that member advocates, then our most vulnerable workers, including those on the minimum wage, would see their living standards go backwards.