Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: What recent announcements has she made about New Zealand’s commitment to global vaccine development?

Yesterday, along with Minister Verrall, we announced New Zealand’s continued support of global vaccine development through a further $10 million pledge to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations—or CEPI. CEPI plays a critical role in supporting the global scientific community and it was a major contributor to the development of most of the vaccines available for COVID-19 today. New Zealand’s continued membership of CEPI, and the participation of our researchers and innovators in its network, significantly improves our ability to respond to this and any future epidemics.

💬 Shanan Halbert: How else is the Government supporting development of New Zealand’s science and innovation capability to respond to future pandemics?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We’ve supported domestic innovation to support future pandemic preparedness through the COVID-19 Innovation Acceleration Fund, investing a total of $33 million to develop solutions to manage COVID-19, including pandemic prediction and monitoring, wellbeing, and protective equipment. The Government has also invested $10 million into building vaccine research capability and links to New Zealand - based manufacturing through Vaccine Alliance Aotearoa New Zealand, and is investing $36 million into infectious disease research that will help us respond to future pandemics.

💬 Shanan Halbert: How is New Zealand supporting our partners to respond to the pandemic, especially in the Pacific?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government is committed to ensuring Pacific Island countries are supported to meet their ongoing COVID-19 vaccination needs. So far, we’ve donated over 200,000 doses from our domestic portfolio to the Pacific. We are also making significant contributions to global efforts to reach the World Health Organization’s 70 percent vaccination target this year by contributing another 7.3 million fully funded vaccine doses to COVAX, which may help to accelerate vaccine access in the Pacific and Africa.

Question No. 2—Local Government

2. to the Minister of Local Government: Does she believe the Three Waters reform programme will result in better outcomes for ratepayers; if so, why have so many councils rejected Three Waters?

Yes, and most of the local government sector agree the status quo is not working. The changes proposed by the Government are designed to deliver safe, reliable drinking water; a financially sustainable way of investing in infrastructure long term; better environmental outcomes—all of which are affordable for ratepayers in every community big and small, and we’ve demonstrated that in the modelling.

💬 Simon Court: When even former Labour Party leader Phil Goff has said, “It is not appropriate to cede control over this infrastructure to … mana whenua”, isn’t it time for her to drop her plans for co-governance of three waters assets?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I reject the premise of that question if it is promoting co-governance. In fact, what I’d like to acknowledge is that Mr Goff is a member of the governance working group, did participate in some significant discussions around how to strengthen the governance representation and local voice aspects of the reform, and I thank them for their work. In relation directly to the point raised by the member, Mr Goff raised very specific views in relation to the Watercare arrangements and Auckland’s interests, and those are ideas that he has long held.

💬 Simon Court: What evidence does the Minister have that co-governance of three waters entities will result in better water infrastructure being delivered so that people like South Auckland woman Jing Zhang, who it was reported was unable to move into her new home for over two years due to water connection issues, will be able to get their water connected?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: There were two spokes to that question and to some extent, if I go to the first part regarding co-governance, I just want to paraphrase the view of the chair of the governance working group, which is that there is some misinformation out there in relation to the issue of co-governance. That is not, in fact, a feature of the three waters model that I have been promoting and, in fact, the whole idea of ensuring that mana whenua participation alongside council at the representative level will deliver total sum benefits for communities big and small, and certainly to ratepayers.

💬 Simon Watts: What does she say to Auckland mayor and former Labour leader Phil Goff, who said, “a one-size-fits-all approach does not meet our needs.”?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The facts of the matter remain, which is that we have had decades of under-investment in waters infrastructure around the country. People have been kicking the can down the road for far too long and we’re a Government that’s not prepared to do that. What I will say to Mayor Goff, in relation to Auckland: Auckland has received the benefit of aggregation of water service delivery and the creation of a council-controlled model through Watercare, so it is in a very different position. But what I would also like to add to that is that the view of the governance working group, which I think brought some fresh thinking into the conversation, was that those recommendations continue to benefit every community, even Auckland.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: What would she say to rural and provincial communities, many of whom are facing hundreds of millions of dollars of costs over the next few decades if reform of the water services does not continue?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: What I would say is that there is hope because the reform programme that we’re embarking on will deliver benefits to every ratepayer around the country from communities big, small, provincial, rural, urban, and metro. And what we have shown through the modelling is that the benefits of aggregation, balance sheet separation, the ability to ensure that communities are getting value for money and that it is affordable for all ratepayers—by and large, the Three Waters Reform Programme that we are proposing delivers on all that range of challenges.

Question No. 3—Foreign Affairs

3. to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What recent actions has she taken to support further sanctions against Russia?

I want to acknowledge that Parliament has unanimously passed historic sanctions legislation in response to Russia’s war on Ukraine. This legislation allows us to step up our response to Russia’s grave, unprovoked war on the Ukrainian people. The new Russia Sanctions Act enables me as foreign Minister to recommend specific sanctions against those who are linked to Russia’s war in Ukraine or who are of economic or strategic importance to Putin’s regime. Sanctions can include freezing assets, disrupting Russian banking, and banning Russian ships and planes. The legislation allows Government to ramp up its sanctions response as needed. The addition of sanctions builds on the measures we have already implemented to condemn and punish Russia’s actions. This includes targeted travel bans, export controls, and an initial $2 million in humanitarian aid to support those in Ukraine.

💬 Vanushi Walters: What does the Russia Sanctions Act allow New Zealand to do?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The Act sets a framework which enables me as foreign Minister to recommend specific sanctions through regulations which will be able to stop or restrict people or companies from travelling to or from New Zealand; or staying here, if they’re already here; moving assets to New Zealand; or using assets already here; providing or using services like banks, loans, legal services. This means we can, for example, stop the purchase or sale of property, the movement of marine vessels and planes in New Zealand’s waters or airspace, stop imports or exports or the movement of money. These sanctions will be targeted against those who are linked to Russia’s war in Ukraine. The Act creates several new criminal offences, as well as civil enforcement mechanisms, and we’re also using existing laws like the Immigration Act to deport people, the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act to enforce these sanctions.

💬 Vanushi Walters: Why was it so important to introduce a targeted bill?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine violates international law. The principle of territorial integrity and sovereignty underpins international order. In this case, a bespoke Act of this kind enables New Zealand to join other countries in imposing sanctions on Russia, and it’s necessary. While this Act is targeted at Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, sanctions are not limited to just Russia. It also enables us to respond to those States or individuals who might help Russia in their aggression against Ukraine, like Belarus. As I’ve said in this House in the debate last night, consideration of a comprehensive autonomous sanctions regime including Magnitsky provisions and human rights requires fuller consideration and consultation with stakeholders, and it’s my intention to progress work in this space.

💬 Vanushi Walters: When will she be implementing the first sanctions?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: We’re already working with urgency on the initial tranche of regulations. The first tranche will align New Zealand with partners to prevent assets from being moved here. This will include more extensive travel bans, sanctions on Russian banks, and potential asset freezes based on discussions with international partners. There will be further phases as we build a bigger picture of assets here in New Zealand. The framework for sanctions allows us to evolve dependent on situations on the ground in Russia and the actions taken. It provides us with the ability to carefully examine the relationships and identify individuals and companies that meet the legal threshold outlined in the bill so we can have the greatest impact on Russia’s ability to sustain a war.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree that “Families across Aotearoa are struggling to make ends meet as the cost of living rises, and they are being made to make tough calls over the basics”, as stated in RNZ’s report Whānau across Aotearoa struggle with basics as costs rise yesterday, and, if not, why not?

I continue to acknowledge that New Zealand families are facing significant financial pressure right now from inflation, which is being driven by global factors, including the impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Government has invested in supporting low and middle income New Zealanders through the pandemic and the elevated levels of inflation that are being experienced. As I’ve already mentioned in the House, we’re taking action through Budget 2022 to address some of this pressure, including through the family tax credit, which would see $20 per week on average for more than 340,000 families. I would note to the member that his party’s proposals would do very little for the people of Kaikohe who are mentioned in the story in his question, giving the one-third of them who are on $30,000 a year or less, $2.15 per week, while giving MPs in this House nearly 10 times that amount.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What does he say to Jeanette, quoted in the RNZ story as “feeling the pinch” and whose partner has had to leave his remote Northland forestry job because they can no longer afford the rising petrol costs, so that their family of four is now relying on the benefit and who says, “it’s just too hard at the moment.”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said, I say to Jeanette, and all other New Zealanders, we understand that it is tough at the moment with the increasing cost of living that we are seeing. That is the reason why this Government has committed to supporting people like Jeanette and her family through increases to things like the family tax credit—also in a situation now where we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world. I also note that while I want to see Jeanette and her family back in work, while they are on the benefit, they are benefiting from increases that this Government put in place in 2020, 2021, and 2022—all of which were opposed by the member and his party.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer (remote): Does the Minister accept there is a cost of living crisis and that it is considerably worse for Māori in Aotearoa, and, if not, why not?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I’ve said, I accept that there is considerable pressure on family and household budgets at the moment as a result of the inflation that we are seeing. We also know that Māori are overrepresented in lower-income households in New Zealand and that is one of the reasons why we stand proudly by our record of supporting Māori whānau, because we have consistently lifted the rates of income support, we have lifted the minimum wage, and we are increasing the family tax credit—all of which will provide significant money in the pockets of families; far more than $2.15 per week as the Opposition would have it.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is the Minister concerned about the impact of the cost of living crisis on child poverty when the latest child poverty rates show Māori, Pacific, and disabled tamariki and their whānau are unchanged in the last three years and still experiencing the same material hardship?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What we do know from the child poverty statistics we’re seeing is that we’ve seen significant progress on all nine of the indicators that are included within the Child Poverty Reduction Act. We’re seeing significant progress most recently in reducing the number of children in material hardship. We will continue to invest here; the job is most definitely not done. The way that we do that is to continue to support low and middle income households through the changes that we’ve made. Doing tax cuts that would provide significant benefit to the highest-income earners is not the answer to improving child poverty.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: With all the support the Minister speaks so much about, what does he say to pensioner Timi, who sells sausages on the side of the street in Kaikohe and is quoted in the RNZ story that I’ve already referred to, saying that the cost of selling them has gone up from $1 so that “People can’t even afford a $2 sausage,”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I would say to that person is that they would not be better off with an Opposition that gives $20 a week to the highest-income earners, that’s not prepared to support the initiatives that this Government has put forward to lift the incomes of low and middle income New Zealanders. I’m sure that gentleman knows that the priorities of this Government are to work in his favour; not the Opposition—not the Opposition—who favour those on the highest incomes.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How can he speak so incredibly confidently and what does he say to the family man quoted by Newshub, who, visiting a foodbank for the first time despite having a good job—quote—“I feel sad because this isn’t a place I ever expected to be in my life. I have a decent job. I’m a department manager at a big box retailer. Now I’m in a position where I’m accepting food from strangers to feed my family. I’m embarrassed.”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I would say is that this side of the House understands that, right at the moment, we have a significant increase in the cost of living that is affecting many families. It’s the reason why we’re lifting the family tax credit to give $20 per week on average to 340,000 families. It’s the reason why we’ve supported the lifting of the minimum wage. It’s the reason why we’ve supported increases in income support and BestStart and a range of other initiatives. All of those things have been opposed by the member and his party. The crocodile tears he’s crying now do not ring true.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Minister accept that, in light of the recent Commerce Commission report, the Government must support independent supermarkets, including Māori, to help lower the cost of groceries; if not, why not?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, as the member will know, the Government has received the report of the Commerce Commission. We believe that there are some initiatives in there that will be important in lowering the costs that people face when they go to the supermarket. Dr David Clark, in responding, has also said that the Government is prepared to go further than what is in the report if it does not achieve the goals of lowering those costs and supporting people in the cost of living

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will the Minister recommend to Cabinet that, in light of the cost of living crisis, the minimum wage is immediately increased to $25 per hour and that it is tagged to increases in the cost of living, given that some people are working two or three jobs and still can’t pay their bills?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We have, most recently, increased the minimum wage by $1.20, taking it up to a level that is getting closer and closer to what is known as the living wage. We will continue to increase the minimum wage to support New Zealanders. I do note that those in the Opposition who are currently out there making opportunistic statements, like the member asking me this question today, have consistently opposed minimum wage increases.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: In light of that, what does he say to Tāmati Coffey, bar owner of Rotorua, quoted by RNZ, “I noticed when I went to last fill up my petrol tank and last went supermarket shopping, yeah, I’d say that we were in really, really tough times. I wouldn’t say it’s happened overnight. This has been a crisis [for a while] – I’d also say it’s a bit of an inequity crisis that’s going on as well between those that have and those that don’t. It’s a pretty serious thing.”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I’ve said in this House consistently—[Interruption]

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Do you want to hear the answer?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I’ve said in this House consistently—[Interruption] Shall I carry on, Mr Speaker?

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, it’s really not worth answering, if members are going to behave like that. So the Hon Simon Bridges has asked the question, he deserves an answer.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I would say is what I’ve said consistently in this House: that it is tough for a number of families now. Mr Coffey references the concept of inequality and inequity, and, on this side of the House, that’s why we’ve increased benefits consistently—opposed by every member over there. That’s why we’ve increased the minimum wage—opposed by every member over there. So while they sit here today and shout and yell across the House, they know they have opposed all of the measures that would address that inequality.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Are Labour considering meaningful tax reductions and providing relief to New Zealanders, given Tāmati Coffey’s comments to RNZ yesterday, that “taking the GST off fruit and vegetables is something that’s been raised with me locally amongst my local Labour members, so it’s something that I wouldn’t mind seeing us have another go at. I’ll have to talk to more than just the leader [about it], to quite a few people actually that I engage with.”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I would say is that we have meaningful tax reform coming in Budget 2022, through the family tax credit, that will deliver $20 per week on average to those families—far more meaningful than the member’s proposal of $2.15 per week, which would be taking over from the $20 per week for those low and middle income families and, instead, putting $20 per week in the pockets of the highest-income earners.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Don’t Jeanette’s, Timi’s, Tāmati Coffey’s, and others’ experiences show that we have a cost of living crisis in our country and that New Zealanders need meaningful tax relief in Budget 2022?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: If the member opposite thinks $2.15 per week is meaningful for those households, when he would be taking away $20 per week from those who are getting the family tax credit, when he would be undermining our health, our education, our housing systems by all of those things, then he has got his priorities completely wrong. On this side of the House, we will continue to support New Zealanders with the increasing costs they’re facing.

Question No. 5—Police

5. to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has she seen regarding the disruption of organised crime?

I’ve seen a report that Police will continue a major operation to crack down on gangs and organised crime, with the extension of Operation Tauwhiro announced on Tuesday. Operation Tauwhiro is a nationally coordinated operation that we launched back in February 2021, designed to disrupt and prevent firearms-related violence by gangs and organised crime groups. The operation will now run until June 2022, ensuring that the incredible, successful year-long operation will continue to significantly disrupt organised crime in New Zealand.

💬 Ginny Andersen: What successes, if any, has Operation Tauwhiro had in the past year?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Operation Tauwhiro is one of the most successful police operations ever undertaken in New Zealand to combat organised crime. As part of this operation, Police have taken 1,531 firearms off the street, arrested 1,255 people, taken 53 kilograms of methamphetamine out of circulation, and conducted 926 searches under warrant, as well as 634 warrantless searches. A key focus of the operation has been and will continue to be investigating and disrupting the illegal supply of firearms to gangs and organised crime groups.

💬 Ginny Andersen: What other reports has she seen regarding police operations targeting gangs and organised crime?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Police have a number of major operations under way at any one time to break up gangs and organised crime. At the end of February, Police terminated a major operation at the border, alongside their colleagues at Customs. This successful multi-agency operation identified and terminated the shipment of more than half a tonne of methamphetamine arriving in Auckland Airport on 24 February. The street value of this seizure is estimated to be more than $245 million. The operation strikes a major blow against the importation of drugs into New Zealand.

Hon Mark Mitchell (remote): Is she aware that gang membership has increased by over 50 percent since Labour came into office, and is she surprised by comments from a local business owner, where a stray bullet from a gang brawl injured a staff member, saying that the Government is “delusional” when talking about its efforts to quash gangs?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: My sympathies go out to that business owner and the staff member. This Government has made record investments into our police and put more police on the beat. Those investments have supported Police to undertake operations such as Tauwhiro, one of the most successful police operations against gangs and organised crime. I would note that the previous Government announced firearms prohibition orders, for example, in 2014 and 2016, and yet failed to introduce the legislation. This Government has a bill before select committee that will give Police more tools to crack down on gun crime.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon Mark Mitchell—supplementary.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Mr Speaker, I only had one supplementary, but I’m happy to take another one.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, I beg your pardon—my mistake. We’ll—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, you were called. You can’t be uncalled.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: We’ll go on to the next question.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, hang on. You can’t do that, Mr Speaker.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I can.

Question No. 6—COVID-19 Response

6. to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Does he stand by all his statements and actions in responding to COVID-19?

Yes, and in particular I stand by my announcement this morning that 28 of our 32 current managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facilities will be returning to being regular hotels by the middle of this year. Our MIQ facilities have served us incredibly well during the course of the pandemic, and the staff who have worked in them deserve particular acknowledgment for placing themselves on the front line between the virus and New Zealanders. It’s been difficult work. I think, as a country, we all owe them a great big vote of thanks for the enormous contribution they have made to our COVID-19 response.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why did he publicly disclose information in a Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) briefing relating to Charlotte Bellis that specifically said it was not for public comment?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated to the member this morning, I don’t intend to make any further comment on that individual case. If a member acting on behalf of the person concerned wants to raise a matter with me and they have a signed consent form in order to do so, then they are certainly able to do that and I’ll certainly work with them on it. But I don’t intend to make further public comment. I don’t believe it’s in the public interest to discuss individual cases in a forum such as parliamentary—

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order. The Minister may not want to disclose any further information or answer the question, but he is subject to obligations to this Parliament. And it was a very simple question: why did he publicly disclose information? He has previously said he doesn’t want to, but that does not discharge him of his obligations to the House to answer the question.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: He has addressed the question and he said it’s not in the public interest. Therefore, the answer is appropriate.

💬 Chris Bishop: Did he or his staff ask Nanaia Mahuta’s office for a copy of the MFAT briefing that her office received relating to Charlotte Bellis, and, if so, why?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That material has been covered in written answers provided by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in answer to written parliamentary questions to the member. I have nothing further to add to the written material that he’s already been provided.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order. That’s actually not correct. That question I asked, I asked because it’s not covered in the written questions and he can’t refer the House to written questions to answer a question when that information is not, in fact, in the written questions. He needs to answer the question that has been put before him orally now, which is whether or not he or his staff asked Nanaia Mahuta’s office for a copy of the MFAT briefing that her office received.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: None the less, he has answered the question.

💬 Chris Bishop: Well, he hasn’t.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, he has. The answer may be correct or may not be correct—I don’t know—but he has answered the question.

💬 Chris Bishop: Did he ask Nanaia Mahuta’s office for a copy of the MFAT briefing that her office received at 12.55 p.m. on 31 January, relating to Charlotte Bellis?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I refer the member back to the two previous answers that I’ve just given.

💬 Chris Bishop: Does he accept that he has done wrong in this matter and will he apologise to Charlotte Bellis?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Can I refer the member back to the two previous answers I’ve just given him. I think it is important that the House do continue to observe the tradition of not discussing individual cases. Individual cases get raised by members of Parliament with Ministers all of the time, and I think it’s important that members of Parliament are able to do that without, for example, thinking that those cases are going to be the subject of debate in the House of Parliament.

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Can the Minister confirm that the written questions referred to are written questions 3098 to 3101?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t have those particular questions in front of me but, given that the Minister asking the question was the one that answered them, I’m sure that her numbers are correct.

💬 Chris Bishop: They are correct but I’m not sure how that helped the House. Supplementary?

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: You get to commentate, do you? Is that your job?

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, you sort of don’t get to—

💬 Chris Bishop: The Speaker’s the judge of order, actually, Mr Robertson.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, have you two finished? Oh, you have finished. Don’t stand up and give a commentary on a previous answer. Just get up and do your supplementary.

💬 Chris Bishop: In light of what he’s just said around it being important not to talk about particular individuals in Parliament, will he apologise to Charlotte Bellis for breaching her privacy?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I refer the member back to my two first answers.

Question No. 7—Transport

7. to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about support for the aviation sector as New Zealand continues its reconnection with the world?

Today, the Government announced an extension to the Maintaining International Air Connectivity (MIAC) Scheme, providing support to the aviation sector through to March 2023 in order to maintain international connections and support New Zealand’s economic recovery. In the early phase of the pandemic, the Government moved swiftly to keep freight volumes as close as possible to pre – COVID-19 levels as passenger numbers dropped dramatically and, in doing so, helped to support our economy by maintaining critical links with overseas markets for exports. This one-year extension provides a pathway for airlines to exit the scheme as passenger numbers return to normal, which is expected over the coming months. As New Zealand reconnects with the world, we are keeping up momentum to ensure the airlines maintain these routes and, in doing so, we are bolstering our recovery from COVID-19.

💬 Helen White: What have been the benefits of this scheme?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The MIAC scheme has played a vital role in ensuring that New Zealanders have been able to return home during the pandemic, as well as ensuring we get time-critical supplies such as medicines and special equipment into the country quickly. Since May 2020, Government support through MIAC has enabled more than 12,300 flights carrying 235,000 tonnes of airfreight with a trade value of $18.8 billion. During the same period, nearly 105,000 people have returned to New Zealand on these flights, which amounts to approximately half of those who have passed through our managed isolation and quarantine facilities. This scheme has protected our connections with the rest of the world and kept trade flowing.

💬 Helen White: How does the scheme support our Pacific partners in their recovery from COVID-19?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Our supporting our Pacific partners has been an objective of the scheme since it was established in order to maintain key supply chain links and connections with New Zealand. The scheme has maintained a critical lifeline for our Pacific partners. There would have been no flights to Tonga, Samoa, the Cook Islands, and Niue without it. It has delivered essential air connectivity, including for passengers and critical supplies, which has helped these countries in their pandemic response by maintaining an economic lifeline and ensuring that they could access the supplies they needed to fight and recover from COVID-19.

Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment

8. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How many people, if any, received jobseeker support for one year or longer according to the September 2017 Ministry of Social Development quarterly statistics and how many people, if any, received jobseeker support for one year or longer according to the December 2021 Ministry of Social Development quarterly statistics?

As the member knows, comparing different quarters of benefit statistics doesn’t take into account seasonal spikes. But to answer the question, the number of people on jobseeker support for longer than a year in the September 2017 quarter was 67,890. The more relevant comparison is December 2017 to December 2021. The number of people who had been on a jobseeker support for longer than a year in December 2017 was 69,087, or 56.2 percent of total job seeker numbers. For December 2021, it was 116,634, or 62 percent of total job seeker numbers, a small percentage increase of 5.8 percent, which is encouraging given the global emergency we have been dealing with. I’m pleased to say that throughout 2021 we saw a record number—119,700 people—exit a main benefit and go into work, around 40,000 more than in 2017.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Can she explain, at a time when businesses are crying out for staff, why 55,000 people have spent three years or longer stuck on jobseeker, an increase of 20,000 people under Labour?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Economic shocks such as COVID-19 affect more vulnerable people in the labour market. These people tend to have barriers to employment, such as remote location, lower skills, or no substantial work history. They tend to need more intensive support to re-enter the workforce, and this Government is delivering, with record numbers of people moving off the benefit and into work. We know there are jobs out there in industries such as construction and road transport, and we have been working hard to address the skills gaps by investing heavily in work-focused case management, industry partnerships, and programmes such as Mana in Mahi. These programmes are making a difference.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Can she explain, at a time of severe staff shortages, why the Government has allowed those stuck on the jobseeker benefit for five years or longer to hit 32,000, an increase of 7,500 people under Labour?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We have seen record numbers of people exiting benefit into work, and that is due to the Government’s investment in upskilling and training and employment. If we compare where we are at now with where we were at two years after the global financial crisis, we can see that about 11.4 percent of working-age New Zealanders are on benefit, but at that time 13.1 percent of working-age New Zealanders were on benefit. So we actually are doing significantly better now than what we were doing at that time. I’m heartened to see the numbers of people go down each week that are on benefit, and, actually, I’ve been advised—and these figures will be released tomorrow—that last week we saw over 6,000 people come off benefit.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Does the Minister accept more people are in long-term benefit dependency compared to when this Government took office, and does the Minister believe this is a problem?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: What I accept is that there are more people on benefit now, and Treasury had forecast much more than what we’re currently seeing. I think it’s important to note that, in 2017, the percentage of people receiving a main benefit for longer than a year was 70.7 percent. At the end of 2021, it had only risen slightly and was at 72.5 percent. So, proportionately, we’re not doing much worse than what we were doing previously. However, the raw figures of people that have been on a benefit for more than a year or three years is higher because the overall numbers are higher, but thank goodness not as high as what Treasury had originally forecast we may get to.

💬 Hon Michael Wood: Can the Minister confirm that changes that the Government has made to abatement thresholds mean that some people who are still receiving benefits have, in fact, been incentivised to move into the workforce?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: That’s certainly what it’s starting to look like. Also, the preliminary view of the information I’ve seen, although it does need more interrogation, is looking like there are a number of people who were working part-time at the time the policy was introduced who then became eligible for a benefit, so this actually supported them with being able to get more of an income. So in both ways it has worked for a number of New Zealanders, and I think that it’s realising the policy intent that we intended when we implemented that.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Why has the Minister allowed benefit dependency to spiral out of control, when it harms not only those trapped on benefit but the lives of the one in five New Zealand children now growing up in benefit-dependent households?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think it’s very disingenuous for that member to say that benefit numbers are spiralling out of control, when that member knows that Treasury had forecast a much darker predicament than what we’re currently experiencing. To boot, with regards to the fact that we haven’t experienced the height in terms of the numbers of beneficiaries that Treasury had first anticipated, we’re also experiencing an unemployment rate of 3.2 percent, which I believe is the lowest that we’ve ever had, or the lowest we’ve had since something like 1986. This Government’s investment into upskilling and training and employment opportunities is very apparent. I’m proud of our track record. We recognise there’s more to do, but we’re the Government to get that done.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order. During the back and forth of the exchange there, the Minister referred to information that was going to be released tomorrow. Pursuant to Standing Order 386, whenever a Minister quotes from a document relating to public affairs, the member may require the Minister to table the document. She referred to information that’s going to be released tomorrow. She was quoting from it. I ask her to table that document.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I’ll ask the Minister if she was quoting from it. Mentioning it or referring to it isn’t quoting from it. But, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, were you quoting from an official document?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I wasn’t quoting from it, and I did seek advice earlier with regards to what I was allowed to say with respect to information that hasn’t yet been published. I didn’t give the exact number. I said greater than a certain amount, so I do not believe that I need to table that information today.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. That’s answered that question.

Question No. 9—Pacific Peoples

9. to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: What is being done to improve opportunities for Pacific students in Aotearoa New Zealand’s schools and universities?

This year, a record number of our secondary and tertiary students will be getting support thanks to the Toloa STEAM fund, which encourages study in the science, technology, engineering, the arts, and mathematical fields. There will be a total of 238 Toloa secondary school scholarships for our students in the coming year which will be going to 83 schools and cover school fees and equipment for one year to the maximum of $2,000 for the first time. I’m also delighted to say that a further 50 Toloa tertiary scholarships have been awarded for Pacific young people to undertake tertiary studies. This scholarship will cover tuition fees and compulsory course-related fees up to $10,000 for a year of full-time study for science-, technology-, engineering-, arts-, and mathematics-related courses.

Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki: What about the Toloa STEAM providers, are they being funded?

💬 Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: We are building up funding for emerging providers for the Toloa capability fund. I want to build up the capacity and capacity for delivering STEAM programmes to Pacific communities. This year, 10 applicants were presented with funding; eight in Auckland and two in Wellington. I’m also pleased to say that another six providers from Auckland, Palmerston North, Hamilton, and Porirua will receive funding from the Toloa substantial provider fund. This will go a long way to supporting our proven and experienced providers to deliver Pacific-centric STEAM programmes.

Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki: What do the Toloa scholarships mean for the wider Pacific community?

💬 Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: The Government has made empowering Pacific Aoteroa a priority. Education is one way to achieve this goal. Pacific people have been under-represented in the STEAM fields for a long time and we are working hard to change this through the Toloa STEAM programme. We want Pacific peoples fulfilling their potential in the belief everyone in Aotearoa has the opportunity to succeed, be able to provide for their families, and contribute to the general economic recovery and wellbeing of Aotearoa New Zealand. With Toloa, the Government has created an ecosystem with Pacific learners, providers, and Pacific leaders where Pacific parents are feeling confident and excited about their children pursuing STEAM studies, and our Pacific youth are equally excited that they will own the digital economy. I congratulate all of our Toloa scholarship winners and I wish the students and their families the very best of luck as they pursue their dreams, leading in the forefront of the new Pacific Aotearoa.

Question No. 10—Workplace Relations and Safety

10. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does he stand by all his statements?

Yes, in the context in which they were made. In particular, I stand by my statement that “Our Government has sought to build a modern and fair workplace relations environment through policies like increasing sick leave entitlements 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, all while keeping unemployment at record low levels.”, and that “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.”

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: In rejecting the premise yesterday that Government decisions that have imposed costs on businesses have contributed to the cost of living, is he arguing that significant Government-imposed costs on businesses, large and small, for which he’s responsible, have not flowed through to higher prices at all in this country?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I stand by my statement yesterday, in which I provided very clear information—for example, the extremely minimal inflationary impact that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has assessed increases to the minimum wage on. And I pointed out the clear evidence—for example, from Treasury and its comments on the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update—that most of the cost of living pressures that New Zealanders are feeling relate to international supply chain factors.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can he stand by his statement yesterday, “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.”, when Government statistics are clear that in each quarter of 2021, average hourly earnings growth was less than inflation?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I can do that because that’s what the figures very clearly show, and I can assist the House in this. For example, if we take the quarter two figures year by year under the term of this Government, in 2018, median hourly earnings were 1.1 percent higher than the Consumers Price Index (CPI). In 2019, they were 0.4 percent higher than CPI. In 2020, they were 4.3 percent higher than CPI. They were a little lower in 2021, owing to some of those cost impact pressures that we have seen from COVID. But the clear record of this Government is for wage increases that are consistently higher than increases in the cost of living. We acknowledge the pressures that people are under now, but it’s no answer to that, as the member would have it, for us to not increase things like the minimum wage, that will actually help the most vulnerable workers to deal with those cost pressures.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order. Isn’t it the case that if a Minister makes a statement in the House that is factually wrong, which he did there, where he said that hourly earnings were consistently higher than inflation, when I’ve just demonstrated that they weren’t in 2021, is the Minister not obliged to correct it at the first opportunity?

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not the way to go about such a matter. If the Minister believes that to be correct, then he has made that answer. The member should use his supplementaries to, perhaps, debate that issue.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: OK, I will, then. Does he concede that the labour cost index, which measures changes in salaries and wages for a fixed quantity and quality labour input, shows a 2.6 percent increase in 2021 compared with inflation of 5.9 percent, indicating that the cost of living is going up twice as fast as wages?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I stand by all the comments that I’ve made in the course of this discussion whereby I’ve pointed out that, consistently across the term of this Government, workers have received wage increases in excess of the cost of living, while acknowledging particular pressures that have been felt here in New Zealand and around the world, due to the impacts of COVID-19 and supply chain factors. But the associated point I make is perhaps the most important one—the question is: what do we actually do about it? What we’ve heard from that side of the House is that they actually oppose the minimum wage increase that supports the lowest-income workers in New Zealand, and that side of the House, with the honourable exception of Nicola Willis, who supported the Government’s position, would see the living standards of the lowest-income workers go backwards. That’s not what we believe in in this Government.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he surprised that some Kiwis wonder whether his Government understands the reality of what we on this side of the House recognise is a cost of living crisis, when its workplace relations Minister denies clear, factual evidence that wages are not keeping up with inflation in 2021 and 2022?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I am surprised that that member and others consistently raise the issue of the cost of living, and then every single time that this Government does something to actually make sure that Kiwi workers get a fair go and get fair wages, they oppose it. I recognise that that member still wishes that it was 1991 in the height of free-market extremism, but, actually, on this side of the House, we believe that Kiwi workers deserve a fair go, and we’ll take steps that we need to, including increases to the minimum wage, to make sure that they do.

Question No. 11—Energy and Resources

11. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she think that a nearly 60 percent increase in the combined profits of the four major electricity companies suggests the electricity market is delivering fair power prices for New Zealanders?

I have long signalled my view that the market is not working perfectly for everybody. I do note that if you unpack the combined 60 percent increase in profits number the member is referring to, the underlying operating profits increased by 1.8 percent. I’m concerned about the impact of recently high wholesale electricity prices flowing through to businesses and, potentially, to households in the future. Recent wholesale price increases have been attributed to constraints in the gas production system and the need to use more coal last year as hydro lake levels were unusually low. This highlights to me why we must transition our electricity system away from fossil fuels and why I am investigating an enlarged pumped hydro scheme, and similar options, to help with that objective. Last year, I spoke with the Electricity Authority about the effectiveness of competition in the wholesale electricity market. They are now investigating the wholesale market and I look forward with interest to the authority’s report. Despite my ongoing concerns about the wholesale market, I am pleased with the progress the Government is making following the Electricity Price Review to promote fairer electricity prices.

💬 Teanau Tuiono: Is she concerned by the findings of a Consumer survey last year that claimed 18 percent of Kiwis had trouble paying their monthly power bills, and one in 10 Kiwis have been refused service by a power company because they have missed payments?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: It was precisely those concerns around energy hardship that led our Government, in the last term, to carry out the Electricity Price Review. The findings of that review identified that there were a very large number of New Zealand households that were experiencing problems with their power bills, and why we’ve put in place measures to address some of that hardship. What I do ask the member to do is when he hears that—all members of this House, for people that cannot pay their bills—not only to seek the normal support with paying the actual bill but to look into options for reducing power bills through initiatives such as the Warmer Kiwi Homes, the insulation and efficient heat source. That, of course, can be accessed through the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA), and I invite members to get constituents to call 0800 749 782.

💬 Teanau Tuiono: What is the Government doing to incentivise energy efficiency, the uptake of household solar, and to ensure low-income families do not suffer energy hardship in light of the removal of the low user tariff?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The removal of the low user fixed charge will actually result in 60 percent of New Zealand households getting fairer pricing for their electricity. I know that a number of the families that I represent are large families that live in homes that aren’t as well insulated as in some other parts of the country or, indeed, my city, and those people will actually have fairer power bills as a result. But, for those people that are coming off the low fixed-user charges, there are a number of supports in place. As I indicated, there is support for families through things such as the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme. We’ve also done the work through making sure that homes are insulated when they are rented, with the change in standards there, and I encourage people that are struggling with their power bills to contact EECA.

💬 Teanau Tuiono: What alternatives, if any, did she consider to phasing out the low user tariff, and would any of these have reduced electricity costs for large low-income households while promoting energy efficiency?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The decision to phase out the low fixed-user charge was, of course, a recommendation of the Electricity Price Review which was aimed, very much, at the concerns that the member is sharing in the House here today, which is around those families that are experiencing energy hardship. For reducing costs, larger families who aren’t low users, because of the nature of the size of their family and their homes, will more potentially be better off under their changes. They will not be cross-subsidising people, like myself, who live in a smaller family unit in a very well-insulated house. So they will be better off under those. In terms of energy efficiency, that is something the Government is putting a lot of work into, I refer the member again to the answers in regard to Warmer Kiwi Homes.

💬 Teanau Tuiono: Do the excessive profits gained by electricity companies indicate that the response to the Electricity Price Review does not go far enough, and will the Minister commit to bolder reforms, including to the wholesale market?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I outlined to the member in the answer to the primary question, I am awaiting a report on the wholesale market from the Electricity Authority, and further advice. But I do caution the member about using the 60 percent combined profit figure that was the headline in a recent media article that, actually, if you dig into it, what it includes is Mercury’s sale of its share in Tilt Renewables and the combined net profit falls slightly to 412 million, which is actually less than the period before. As I said, it is actually a 1.8 percent increase in operating profit, but that does not mean I am not continuing to look at issues around the wholesale electricity market.

Question No. 12—Climate Change

12. to the Minister of Climate Change: Is he confident that New Zealand’s primary industries have all the tools at their disposal to offset emissions, and does he believe there will be a significant cost increase to farmers from the emissions pricing schemes proposed in the He Waka Eke Noa discussion documents?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, it depends.

💬 Mark Cameron: Does he agree with the director of He Waka Eke Noa, who said that “We’re trying to get something that will actually drive change, but not put people out of business.”, and, if not, how many farmers will be driven out of business by the He Waka Eke Noa proposals?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, I’m not sure that the industry has provided any figures that would enlighten the member on that.

💬 Mark Cameron: If he agrees we are facing a climate emergency, why has an application for the Bovaer methane inhibitor, which has been approved in the EU, sat on the desk of the Environmental Protection Authority for 13 months?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: I don’t have responsibility for the Environmental Protection Agency.

💬 Mark Cameron: What would he say to claims that reducing production from New Zealand farmers, who are the most efficient in the world, will increase global emissions and make New Zealand poorer as demand for agricultural products stays high and less-efficient overseas farmers with higher emissions take our place?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: I’d say that I’ve heard that assertion a number of times but I’ve not seen any evidence that it is true. If you look at, for example, the work that Silver Fern Farms have done, they have just released a net zero beef product into the US market, which is selling very well, and they’re looking to expanding that to other product lines as well. There are a number of farms and farming businesses throughout the country that have actually increased their profitability whilst reducing both methane and nitrous oxide emissions into the atmosphere, and what that suggests, actually, after many years of research and trial and error, is that it is entirely possible for farming to be both more profitable and lower-emission.