Oral Questions

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

Yes, particularly the Government’s consistent efforts to increase wages and support for low and middle income earners. We cannot control the war in Ukraine, nor the continued volatility of fuel prices, but we can take steps to reduce the impact on New Zealand families. That’s why we have reduced fuel excise duties and road-user charges by 25c and halved the price of public transport. This builds on a comprehensive package due to come into play on 1 April, which increases Working for Families for 346,000 families, ensuring they are better off by, on average, $20 a week. Of course, that coincides with further benefit increases and increases for superannuitants and also student support. On 1 May, the winter energy payment restarts again, benefiting over a million New Zealanders during the winter months, including superannuitants. There is no silver bullet that will fix the cost of living, but we have a plan and are implementing a range of measures that together will help to make a difference. That stands in stark contrast to the idea from the Opposition of reducing taxes for those earning over $180,000 a year.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does the Prime Minister accept that with weekly rents up a staggering $150 a week under Labour, the largest four-year increase in New Zealand’s history, her Government’s housing policies have made the cost of living crisis much, much worse for the one in three Kiwi households who rent?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: First, if I could just give the context that according to Stats New Zealand rental price index, the rental increases we’ve seen from, for instance, 2013 to 2017 in terms of percentages, is actually the same as, for instance, the period that we’ve seen while we’ve been in office. Where there is a difference is the approach that we as a Government have taken relative to the previous Government. We have worked hard to try and tip the balance in favour of renters and first-home buyers. The combination of interest deductibility, the extension of the brightline test, the work that we have done to incentivise new builds to increase housing stock has led to, for instance, record consents. We know that this is an issue of supply and demand because in those areas where we have increased supply, we’ve seen lesser increases in rents relative to those areas of constrained supply. The big difference is we are working hard to build houses, whereas on the opposite side, they worked hard to sell off Government houses.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why did she introduce additional taxes on rental housing last year, despite Inland Revenue Department officials clearly warning her it would drive up rents?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As has been the case time and time again in this House, I do want to correct the member. The member is referring to advice that was provided before the additional changes that we made. That’s meant that we are phasing out interest deductibility over a four-year period—

💬 Nicola Willis: You were warned.

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —and importantly, including an exemption on new builds. The whole goal is twofold. We want to make it easier for first-home buyers to buy. On the opposite side of the House, they are proposing to remove the brightline test and interest deductibility, which would not improve the housing market for first-time buyers; and secondly, to improve supply, we’ve created a carve-out for new builds, to incentivise the building of houses. This stands in contrast with the Opposition, who actually have no proposals whatsoever.

💬 Christopher Luxon: So why have rents increased by an additional $50 since she introduced those taxes?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: There is no evidence to suggest it has been as a result of those changes, and I remind the member again, the increases that we’ve seen actually mirrored the increases we saw from 2013.

💬 Nicola Willis: Incorrect.

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That demonstrates—that is a statement of fact based on Stats New Zealand—that we’ve got a decades-old problem that in contrast to the Opposition, we have policies that are working hard to solve the problem. On the opposite side, they intend to get rid of everything that will make it easier for first-home buyers.

💬 David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister explain to the people of New Zealand just why she thought raising taxes on landlords in a tight rental market wouldn’t lead to an increase in rents?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The CoreLogic data shows that investors still remain active in the market: 36 percent of transactions are going to multiple property owners. What we want to do for those investors is steer them towards new builds so we can expand supply, rather than operating in the same market as first-home buyers.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that with rents up an additional $50 a week since she introduced those taxes—the largest one-year increase in rents we’ve ever seen in this country—her tax increases have clearly made the cost of living crisis much worse, just as she was warned they would?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Here, again, I will point the member back to what the increases have shown. However, the contrast that exists between this side of the House and the opposite is, rather than just seeing those increases and doing nothing, we have invested heavily in supporting low and middle income earners: first, the package of changes we’ve made to try and improve the housing market for first-home buyers and renters—and there is still more to do—secondly, lifting the incomes of low and middle income earners, and on 1 April, we have another tranche of changes again. That stands in contrast with the members opposite, who want to get rid of all of those tax changes to try and help first-home buyers, who stood opposed to some of our measures to stop increases on more than an annual basis for renters, and who want to give those low and middle income earners $2.16 as a solution to the cost of living. We have a much more substantial package.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does the fact she is now resorting to re-announcing policies that were already announced months ago show that her Government is simply running out of ideas?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Two points I would make there: firstly, of course what we announced yesterday—the 25c reduction in excise—was in direct response to the war in Ukraine and the impact it is having on New Zealanders at the pump, as was the 50 percent reduction in public transport to encourage and support those who do have the choice of public transport to adopt it. It was not a policy developed last year, because there was no war last year.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Can the Prime Minister explain why someone should pay more tax because of inflation?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I have already highlighted in the House, our primary focus has been on giving back to low and middle income earners at a much larger rate than the tax cuts proposed by the member. It is because our long-term measures to support living cost impacts are long term and targeted. By being targeted, they can be more generous, and, again, I contrast what someone on $45,000 would receive: over $20 on this side versus $2 from that side.

💬 Christopher Luxon: What is her response to ANZ economist Miles Workman that “Inflation is now running laps around wage growth, meaning households are going backwards at an alarming rate.”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m sure that commentator would also reflect that that has not been the case since this Government came into office, and—as I’ve said many times—since 2018, wages have increased at, roughly, 3.5 percent; inflation has been at 2.2 percent. We are in extraordinary times. We have the wicked perfect storm of a pandemic, the impact on supply, and, add to that, a war. It is having an effect, and that is why we have both the changes we announced yesterday to ease the pressure at the pump, and also the 1 April changes, both of which amount to a significant increase for low and middle income earners that is vastly different than what’s being proposed by members opposite.

Hon Chris Hipkins (remote): Can the Prime Minister confirm that the last time New Zealanders experienced a significant increase in the cost of living, they also ended up paying significantly more tax because the then Government decided to increase GST?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I can confirm that the last time New Zealanders were experiencing food price increases was in, from memory, 2011, when the then National Government decided to increase GST, which we know is regressive and hits those who can afford it the least the most. That is fairly consistent with their most recent tax policy, where they have proposed to cut the top tax rate of those who earn—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The question itself was at the edge of the margin, and I think the Prime Minister has taken it beyond.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Is she honestly saying that Kiwis who have seen their real incomes fall over the past year shouldn’t be concerned because inflation four years ago wasn’t as bad?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

💬 Christopher Luxon: How does the Prime Minister think Kiwis struggling with the cost of living feel when they see a Government that’s increased spending by more than $50 billion a year but has still somehow failed to make progress on any of its signature promises, and in areas like housing is actively making things worse?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: By making that statement, I can only assume the member does not support the measures that the Government took in the face of the pandemic to support businesses and keep people in employment, the most significant of which, of course, was the wage subsidy to keep people connected to employment. Just as it was our job to help support New Zealanders through the pandemic, it is our job to help them through the economic impacts that we’ve seen as a result: keeping unemployment at 3.2 percent, as we have done, and debt relative to other countries as low as we have; and, now, supporting them through the cost of living impacts of the pandemic and the war. We demonstrated that we could respond quickly in the face of a pandemic; we are doing the same now in the wake of the Ukraine war.

Chlöe Swarbrick (remote): Is there any evidence tax cuts for landlords will pass on to rent cuts for renters?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We have consistently heard claims that when you increase, for instance, accommodation supplement, that immediately is taken up in rental increases. We’ve consistently heard that making our homes warmer and drier will negatively impact on tenants, rather than actually keeping them warm, dry, and healthy. There is no evidence to suggest the changes that we’ve been making in the areas the member has indicated and, in fact, all of those other areas have necessarily directly translated in the way the members across the House suggest. Again, it tells me that they actually have very few solutions on how to make the housing market more affordable and to support first-home buyers.

Question No. 2—Finance

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

In response to the Government’s announcements yesterday to support New Zealanders through the global energy crisis with a temporary reduction in tax on fuel in New Zealand, ANZ bank economists reported that it would reduce inflation. By cutting the fuel excise duty and road user charges by 25c per litre for the next three months, they estimate that the direct impact of the change could reduce inflation in the June quarter by 0.5 percentage points. ANZ noted that the reduction will cause a one-off drop in prices, as well as a second-round impact, as most goods and services rely on fuel somewhere in the supply chain. They said, “the impact is small in the context of the current levels of high inflation we’re experiencing, but every little bit helps.” We know there is no one answer, or easy answer, to addressing costs of living issues, but we are also continuing to act to support those most affected by cost of living increases, particularly through the packages that will come through on 1 April to support low- and middle-income households, superannuitants, and students.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What other impacts will the Government’s announcement have for the economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The advice that we have received is that the decrease we have announced will save New Zealanders $17.25 every time they fill a 60-litre tank, and $11.50 every time they fill 40-litre tank. We recognise that fuel prices are expected to continue to rise due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine destabilising global energy markets, and we will continue to monitor the situation over the coming months and respond as required. I’d also note that Treasury and the Ministry of Transport have estimated that the cost of the changes announced yesterday will be about $350 million for the three-month period. As this funding from the fuel excise duty goes directly into the National Land Transport Fund that pays for roads, public transport, and walking and cycling infrastructure around New Zealand, we have committed to top up that fund to recognise the critical importance of meeting the country’s transport needs following decades of under-investment.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What steps is the Government taking in Budget 2022 to improve the resilience of the economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The global energy crisis highlights the importance of the move to energy security and independence for New Zealand. Budget 2022 will focus on investing in initiatives to reduce emissions and meet our climate goals. This will include moving away from volatile global oil markets by decarbonising our vehicle fleet and supporting public transport, cycling, and walking. To respond effectively we need to make significant investments across multiple Budgets. The new Climate Emergency Response Fund will invest the proceeds of our Emissions Trading Scheme to combat climate change and support the transition to a more resilient economy with investments that will create sustainable jobs and boost productivity.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree that New Zealand’s cost of living crisis is wider than simply an energy crisis; if not, why?

Can I begin by acknowledging the member’s announcement that he made earlier today and to congratulate him on his political career and also on taking up the opportunities ahead of him, and wish him and his family all the very, very best. As I’ve noted a number of times in this House, I do agree that many New Zealand families are facing significant costs of living increases as a result of factors such as global inflation and the war in Ukraine, and that this represents a crisis for many of them. That’s why the Government yesterday announced a 25c per litre cut to the fuel excise duty and equivalent reductions in road-user charges. It’s also why we have our focus squarely on those most affected, which is why there is a package of income support for middle and low income families from 1 April. This package stands in contrast to the member and his party, who are touting the same old National Party policies of giving tax cuts to the richest New Zealanders while giving $2 a week to those earning $45,000 a year.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he agree that we also have a food cost crisis, for example?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I agree is what I said in my primary answer—that for many New Zealanders the pressure that they are facing from rising prices is indeed a crisis for them. When it comes to the cost of food, I would note two things. The first is the importance of fuel in the food supply chain and the cost that it adds, and how that will be reduced by the announcement that we made yesterday. Secondly, we are continuing to focus on low and middle income earners, who have the hardest time when food prices rise. That’s why the family tax credit going up by $20 per week matters so much. That’s why the increases in benefits matter so much. It’s just a pity that the member in his time here didn’t support those changes.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What does he say to struggling families around New Zealand dreading their grocery shopping, given that under his watch, food prices have increased by the highest amount in a decade in the last year, with essentials like fruit and veges up 17 percent, and tomatoes, for example—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: —now at $7.29 a kilo.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I would say to those people is that on this side of the House, we understand the pressure that rising prices mean. It’s the reason why we’re putting significant money in the pockets of low and middle income New Zealanders, as compared to that member and his party putting $2 a week in the pockets of someone on a low or middle income.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he fully accept and understand the wide-ranging nature of New Zealand’s cost of living crisis—whether it’s energy, food, housing, or other price increases—and isn’t the answer to adopt a meaningful tax relief programme in Budget 2022, as Chris Luxon has suggested?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I simply disagree with the member that it is meaningful for someone on $45,000 a year to be given $2 a week while members of this House would get thousands of dollars a year from Christopher Luxon’s proposal. On this side of the House, we will continue to focus on low and middle income New Zealanders whilst also addressing the fuel issue that affects all of us.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Before the member takes that, there was, during the asking of that question, a fairly consistent interjection from my right, and as a result of that Mr Bridges will get an extra supplementary.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Will I always be his favourite National finance spokesperson?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve been giving significant thought to this question, and I can confirm for the member that among the six National Party finance spokespeople I have faced, he’s in the top half.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What will he miss most about me?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I will miss about the member is his ability found latterly in his political career to not take himself too seriously, and I look forward to his hosting of the Country Calendar yak special.

Question No. 4—Energy and Resources

4. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What actions is she taking to give New Zealanders confidence that they will receive the full benefit of the Government’s 25 cent reduction in fuel excise duty and road-user charges announced yesterday?

Last night, I wrote to fuel companies to confirm that the Government’s 25c per litre reduction in fuel excise would be passed on to consumers from 11.59 p.m. I also further outlined information disclosure that would be required, and I’d like to thank Z Energy, who have already confirmed that they will voluntarily provide this information. In the coming days, I will propose changes to the Fuel Industry Amendment Regulations 2021 to compel the provision of daily rolling seven-day average margin information so we can monitor this. This information will be made publicly available. The Government’s clear expectation is that fuel companies will pass on the full 25c per litre reduction plus the GST component to consumers. These changes will give New Zealanders confidence that the prices that they pay at the pump reflect our decision to reduce petrol excise duty.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: When can New Zealanders expect to see a reduction in the prices they pay at the pump, as a result of these measures?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Following yesterday’s announcement, fuel companies began responding by 5 p.m., dropping their prices by 25c per litre. This means people are already saving $11.50 in excise on a 40-litre tank, and $17.25 on a 60-litre tank. I’m pleased to see that fuel companies acted quickly to pass on savings to consumers, but the Government will continue to monitor prices to ensure that consumers get a better deal at the pump.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: What can New Zealanders do if they’re concerned that savings are not being passed on?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In addition to proposing changes to the Fuel Industry Amendment Regulations 2021 to increase monitoring of fuel company margins, I’ve asked officials at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to follow up on concerns with prices. Of course, we will be collecting data at the company level, not the station level, but I encourage consumers to shop around. If people are concerned that the Government’s reduction in fuel excise is not being passed on, they can email pricewatch@mbie.govt.nz. Emails will be followed up by officials to ensure that people get a better deal at the pump.

Question No. 5—Prime Minister

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

Yes, particularly the Government’s actions to increase incomes from 1 April, including increases to Working for Families, which will make around 346,000 families better off by an average of $20 a week—adjusting the income thresholds for childcare assistance annually, in line with average wage growth, benefiting 1,000 families, or around 1,500 children, after this was something frozen by the previous National Government in 2010. Benefits are to increase by up to $35 a week, bringing the total increases for beneficiaries with children, over the time we have been in office, to an average $175 per week, increasing to $207 per week during the 2022 winter period. In addition, on 1 April, student allowances will increase by $25, superannuation will increase by $52 per fortnight for a single person and $80 for a couple. There’s no silver bullet that will fix the cost of living but we have a plan and are implementing a range of measures that together will help to make a difference.

💬 David Seymour: Why did every single policy she just listed to increase incomes involve handing out taxpayer money, and what does that say about her level of aspiration for New Zealand?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member is opposed to universal superannuation, then that is a matter for the member. If the member does not believe in Government support through sole parent support or jobseeker support, that is, I think, an additional step even for the member. If the member doesn’t believe in student support, again, that is for him to defend. And, again, if the member chooses to get rid of Working for Families, again, that would be a policy that I know the majority of New Zealanders would be very disappointed to hear.

💬 David Seymour: Why didn’t the Prime Minister understand that was not an opportunity to talk about ACT’s policies but to explain to New Zealanders what policies her Government has to raise real productivity, wage growth, and economic growth in this country, and why didn’t she have anything to say about that?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think it’s only on this side of the House where we stand to gain from New Zealanders hearing more about ACT’s policies. ACT’s policies, which, if I were to simply touch on a few—if we were just to look at the tax programme from ACT, they are proposing, for instance, tax cuts, that would essentially mean $11.85 billion, a hole in future Budgets, in order to give those on over $300,000 a $10,000 tax cut, and those on $45,000 or less absolutely nothing. Right now, the difference between this side of the House and that is that we have chosen to make targeted investments to support lower-middle income New Zealanders and make sure that we’re investing in the services that they view as critical: health, education, and other investments that lessen the cost of living. On the other side of the House, they want tax cuts for the wealthy.

💬 David Seymour: Does she stand by her statement that New Zealanders face an energy crisis, and, if so, will the Government’s response to this energy crisis be more successful than its response to the housing crisis, where the median house price has gone up $355,000, or 67 percent, on her watch?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I traversed earlier in question time what we have seen in the housing market, be it the rental market or for homeownership more generally, in the past several years, dating back to well beyond even 2013. In answer to the first half of the member’s question, I stand by those statements, which is why yesterday, as a Government, we moved swiftly to ensure that New Zealanders at the pump were seeing a 25c, and in many cases more, reduction in fuel as a result of the war in Ukraine. We stand by the quick and nimble response there shown to try and ease the pressure, and although it won’t solve everything, our hope is combined, when the 1 April changes, it will make a difference for many.

💬 David Seymour: Does she stand by her earlier statement to this House that the policy to reduce petrol prices by 25c wasn’t ready last year because there was no war and is a response to the war; and if she does stand by it, which budgetary appropriation is she using to fund it, or will this be like Ihumātao, where she spent $30 million illegally and got rapped over by the Auditor-General?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I totally reject the second part of the question. But I will be generous to the member and answer the first part of the question. As the Minister of Finance already demonstrated yesterday, our ability to fund the $350 million that the excise reduction would mean comes from underspend as a result of, primarily, underspend on COVID spending, particularly managed isolation. This is a key difference. The likes of the Automobile Association have supported the initiative, primarily because unlike some of the proposals from the Opposition, we have said that we will not only see the reduction at the pump but we will keep funding critical transport projects and maintenance, which is not what we’ve seen from other members in this House.

💬 David Seymour: Will the Government’s response to the energy crisis be more successful than its response to what it’s called a climate emergency, when emissions, according to Statistics New Zealand, have “shown no obvious sustained reductions compared to 2005”—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’ve been thinking about this line of questions. The member is not relating the primary question or subsequent supplementaries to the subsequent supplementary questions, and he is being ironic. I rule that question out.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister has led off talking about her energy policy. There’s no irony in comparing it with the performance of other policies.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. I’ve ruled the question out. Does the member want a further supplementary?

💬 David Seymour: Why did it take three months from when ACT said there was a cost of living crisis in December for the Prime Minister to admit that there is a cost of living crisis, when Kiwis have known it all along?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Actually, at the end of last year, the Government made the decision to put in place the Working for Families changes that come in on 1 April, at a cost of $270 million, which we took in advance of the Budget, because we anticipated exactly what we are seeing now, as part of the COVID response and recovery globally, causing significant cost of living increases.

💬 David Seymour: Did the Prime Minister hesitate to agree there’s a cost of living crisis because usually when she declares there’s a crisis in an area, that’s a prelude to things getting much worse?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! No. Order! The question was ironic, the member knew it was ironic—

💬 David Seymour: No, I didn’t.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes he did.

💬 David Seymour: Mr Speaker, point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: No, I’ve ruled the question out, but point of order, David Seymour.

💬 David Seymour: Mr Speaker, the question’s only ironic if you agree the Government’s policies have failed—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member’s arguing with me again. He will cease now if he wants to stay here and if he wants his party to have any further supplementaries.

💬 Mark Cameron: Does she stand by her Minister Stuart Nash’s statement that “I’m not … sure what Groundswell stands for these days”, and that “what I have read on their website [is] a mixture of racism [and] anti-vax, etc.”; if not, will she apologise before meeting with them?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member that the member across is referring to, the Minister Stuart Nash, has already addressed those comments extensively in the public. The one thing I would say in addition to that is that I have met consistently, perhaps more than with any other sector, with our farming leaders. We have worked constructively together on a range of significant issues, and may I put on record the disappointment in the fact that across the vast majority of parties in this House, there is clear support of initiatives around climate change and emissions reduction, including to ensure that we maintain our reputation abroad, which we trade on on behalf of our primary producers, and instead, unfortunately, those members want to repeal the zero carbon Act, which would take us backwards and make us less competitive as primary producers on the world stage.

💬 Hon Michael Wood: Does she stand by the Government’s actions in securing a free-trade agreement with the United Kingdom?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely, and I can do no better than reiterate the statements made by seasoned trade officials, who said that this is the best agreement in their memory that New Zealand has achieved, and I want to thank all members in this House who supported and worked so diligently, alongside our excellent trade officials, to deliver that deal, which will make a huge difference for our primary producers, who have carried much weight during the course of this pandemic and pandemic recovery.

Question No. 6—Education

6. to the Minister of Education: What response has he seen to Government initiatives to support training and apprenticeships?

I’m pleased to report that New Zealanders are continuing to flock to the trades since we introduced the free vocational training and apprenticeships fund, or the Targeted Training and Apprenticeships Fund (TTAF). The latest enrolment data shows that 188,090 people have been supported through the fund since we introduced it in July 2020—that includes more than 88,000 apprentices. The fund is making a range of qualifications in key targeted areas—and all apprenticeships—free until the end of this year.

💬 Marja Lubeck: Has TTAF supported a diverse range of New Zealanders to undertake vocational education and training?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, the Targeted Training and Apprenticeships Fund are supporting—32 percent of the learners supported by that fund are under the age of 25 years old, and 26 percent of them are over the age of 40. Twenty percent of the learners are Māori, 14 percent are Asian, and 9 percent are Pacific peoples—these three groups collectively accounting for more than 40 percent of all those receiving support under the fund. Thirty-one percent of people supported by the fund are women, and that is significant given the historic under-representation of women in trades. We can still do better and we’ll still keep pushing to do better.

💬 Marja Lubeck: What support have employers received from the Apprenticeship Boost initiative in relation to vocational learners in their workplaces?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Apprenticeship Boost is part of our COVID-19 support initiatives that helps employers to keep early-stage apprentices employed and training towards their qualification. Since it started in August of 2020, nearly 17,000 employers have been supported to retain over 42,000 first- and second-year apprentices and to take on new apprentices. We now have an unprecedented number of apprentices. In the first two months of this year, we’ve funded over 56,000 apprentices—that’s compared to 48,000 in the same period last year, 2021, and just 37,000 in 2020. So it’s an increase of 18 percent over last year and 55 percent over 2020. As a Government, we’ve been focused on rebuilding our trades and vocational education and training systems, and that work is really delivering results.

Question No. 7—Transport

7. to the Minister of Transport: What steps, if any, will he take to ensure people have access to free, frequent, and accessible public transport?

The Government is committed to supporting more people to travel by public transport and to ensuring that public transport is frequent, reliable, and accessible to support mode shift and our emissions reductions goals. The member will be familiar with announcements that were made yesterday that will assist significantly there over the next three months. In addition, we have, over the course of our time in Government, increased public transport funding in the National Land Transport Fund from $336 million to $636 million. This has supported better outcomes, such as new public transport services in places like Timaru, which now has an on-demand public transport system; $2 fares for buses in Queenstown; major new infrastructure such as the Puhinui train station in Auckland, partly funded by the regional fuel tax; and the Eastern Busway. I also announced earlier this year a pilot Community Connect card to provide half-price public transport to low-income earners in Auckland. I would note that while affordable fares are an important part of ensuring an accessible public transport system, they’re not the only part. Making public transport completely free would reduce the revenue coming into the system, and much international evidence suggests that factors such as the frequency and reliability of services are actually more important in terms of driving patronage than free fares.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why not both increase the frequency of public transport services and make fares free?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As I’ve outlined in my primary answer, the Government is focused both on improving services—also on improving infrastructure—and on making sure that fares are as affordable as possible. I’ve noted the introduction of the Community Connect card on a trial basis in Auckland from 1 July, which will halve fares for people on a community services card. That’s a trial that we want to examine to see if it can be expanded further out. And, of course, as of yesterday, the Government has announced a half-price public transport fare system for the next three months to assist people with cost challenges.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why did the Government yesterday not make public transport completely free in the same way it did in March 2020, which would allow people to better participate in their communities, further reduce the cost of living, and be quicker to implement?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Government announced a significant package of initiatives which will assist New Zealanders to meet cost challenges and to be able to connect in a more affordable way, including significant reductions to the fuel excise duty and road-user charges, and the half-price public transport fares over that period. As ever, we have to consider carefully the priorities that we have, where expenditure will go, and what will achieve the best effect. I do note that there are some complexities involved in shifting towards a fare-free system. One that has been raised with me by local government, for example, is that one of the benefits of people having to pay fares, whether it’s via ticket or whether it’s via card, is that we collect good patronage data, which enables services to be better planned, and that would be potentially lost if there were free fares. So it’s about priorities, it’s about where the investment best goes to get the outcomes we want, and it’s about some of these complexities that aren’t always obvious on the surface.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Will he commit to extending the discount on public transport fares beyond three months to address inequality and help reduce emissions; if not, why not?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: This is a Government which has done more than any other to improve public transport services and to make fares more affordable. As I’ve outlined, we have made a decision to provide funding to local authorities and Waka Kotahi to reduce those fares by half over the next three months, and that is the commitment that we have made. Beyond that, the Government has agreed that we will move forward with the Community Connect pilot in Auckland from 1 July. But, as we move through the Budget process and into the future, including our response within the emissions reduction plan, we’ll continue to look at what we can do to support more Kiwis into high-quality, frequent public transport.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does he agree with Labour Party - endorsed Auckland mayoral candidate Efeso Collins, who said, about free public transport, that “If we are going to address our climate emissions this is the first and best way to do it.”?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As I’ve outlined, there are a range of factors which have been shown to improve public transport patronage. Fares clearly have a place within that, but, actually, much of the evidence is that the quality and the frequency of services is actually more significant. So there are choices for both central and local government leaders to make in terms of where resources go to get the best outcomes for the public transport system. As I always say to local government figures, they also have a part to play here. If local government wants to put additional funding into the system to reduce fares, they can do that in the same way that central government currently is.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does he think it would be easier to deliver frequent and good-quality public transport if our infrastructure and services were publicly owned?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Government is currently reviewing the public transport operating model, and, as a part of that process, which is reaching its conclusions before coming to Cabinet, the set of questions around the appropriate ownership and operations of public transport infrastructure are being considered. So that’s something that I hope to have more to say about in the coming months.

Question No. 8—Environment

8. to the Minister for the Environment: What steps is the Government taking to improve recycling in New Zealand?

Every year, New Zealand generates more than 17 million tonnes of waste and sends two-thirds—almost 13 tonnes—of that to landfill. Just one-third is recycled. Other developed countries do twice as well, recycling two-thirds. Here, too much rubbish ends up in recycling bins, degrading the good stuff. Too much recyclable material goes into the rubbish bin and is wasted. Too much litter ends up on the streets. We’ve announced a plan to improve recycling with three main parts: standardising kerbside recycling; secondly, a container deposit scheme to incentivise people to return their empty drink containers; and, thirdly, separation of business food scraps from general waste to reduce greenhouse gases and recycle the nutrients. These actions will make a difference and we look forward to Kiwis submitting on the plan.

💬 Rachel Brooking: Why is the Government standardising kerbside collection?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Standardising kerbside recycling will reduce confusion and help businesses design packaging that is recyclable anywhere in New Zealand. This will make it simpler and easier for people to recycle. Councils and their contractors have asked for these improvements. Food scraps make up more than a third of a typical household’s rubbish each week, and rotting waste overall accounts for about 9 percent of New Zealand’s biogenic methane emissions. I’m advised that landfill gas capture is unable to meet the methane reduction targets recommended by the climate commission. Accordingly, separating food scraps for collection is necessary to reduce those emissions and return the nutrients to the soil.

💬 Rachel Brooking: Why is the Government proposing a container return scheme?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: About two and a half billion drink containers are sold every year in New Zealand. Less than half of these containers are recycled, meaning that over a billion containers end up as litter, is stockpiled, or is sent to landfills every year. With a container return scheme, we can increase our recycling for beverage containers to between 85 percent and 90 percent. People will return empty drink containers in exchange for a refundable deposit. This will also increase the supply of recovered materials for our onshore recycling system and for our container manufacturers, and it will also help sustainably underpin the economics of many community recycling facilities.

Question No. 9—Transport

9. to the Minister of Transport: Does he have confidence taxpayers are getting value for money with Government transport spending; if so, why?

Yes, across over $5 billion of annual expenditure in the transport system, I believe that there is significant value for money for New Zealanders. Some recent examples include the Maintaining International Air Connectivity scheme, which has enabled nearly $19 billion of New Zealand exports to get to markets. The opening of stage 1 of the Eastern Busway, which is providing the people of Pakuranga with frequent and reliable public transport services for the first time, and the reopening of the Napier to Wairoa rail line, which has taken hundreds of logging trucks off regional roads. While not every decision about the use of taxpayer money has or will always meet my expectations, particularly given the devolved nature of decision making to Crown agencies and State-owned enterprises, I will continue to ensure, where I have responsibility, that the spend of taxpayer money is responsible and proportionate and should, at all times, consider what is good value for money.

💬 Simeon Brown: What is his response to Treasury’s advice regarding Auckland light rail that “We have low confidence that these benefits will be realised, resulting in poor public value.”; and does he think spending up to $29.2 billion for light rail is justifiable to taxpayers?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I think the member needs to read the comments in the full context of Treasury’s advice on this project, including Treasury’s gateway review of the Auckland light rail unit’s business case, which came through with very positive advice for the Government. I think the member also has to be a little careful with the figures that he is using. The cost of the Auckland light rail project, as assessed by the Auckland light rail unit, is $10.4 billion at net present value; $14.6 billion at an inflated value. The figure that the member is using is simply taking those figures, reducing by 50 percent to get a possible lowest cost, and increasing by 100 percent to get a possible outlying cost—those are not actually projections that are based on costings that have been done by the unit.

💬 Simeon Brown: When Kiwis are facing a cost of living crisis, does the Minister think it is acceptable to spend up to $29.2 billion on his Auckland light rail project at a cost of almost $16,000 per New Zealand household?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Before the member answers, I’m going to give the member one more chance to ask the question in a way that’s in order.

💬 Simeon Brown: Does the Minister think it is acceptable to spend up to $29.2 billion on his Auckland light rail project, at a cost of almost $16,000 per New Zealand household?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I reject the premise of the member’s question.

💬 Simon Court: Does he agree with Treasury on light rail that “There is an emerging risk that the costs will be significantly higher than the previous estimates”, and can he guarantee that the benefits of light rail will exceed the costs?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I always value the advice provided by Government departments, including Treasury, but, no, I don’t always agree with them, and the job of Ministers is to consider that advice and then to make considered decisions, and that’s what we’ve done in this case. I note that the formal advice that was presented to Cabinet through the indicative business case, provided by the light rail unit, which went through a Treasury gateway process, showed that all of the options before us—including the one that we have selected—have positive strategic cases, positive economic cases, a positive business case, and a positive benefit-cost ratio.

💬 Simon Court: Will he rule out an annual thousand-dollar tax on properties along the light rail route, as proposed in the light rail indicative business case?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The light rail indicative business case does not make a proposal of that kind, and no such proposal is before the Government. The light rail business case and report to the Government suggests that value capture can be an important part of how the project is funding—something that has received support, for example from Simon Bridges, across the House. Further work will have to be done to develop a scheme that is fair and equitable.

💬 Simeon Brown: What value have Aucklanders received from the $50 million he spent on the Auckland cycling bridge, which he then cancelled, and is he confident this doesn’t amount to wasteful spending?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Northern Pathway project, as the member is well aware, has been reallocated so that funding allocated to that project is going to a range of important projects, including stage 2 of the Eastern Busway. To the extent that expenditure was spent that has not resulted in the particular outcome there, that is a matter of some disappointment, but we move forward to deliver the outcomes that Aucklanders need—outcomes that were ignored for many, many years under that previous Government.

💬 Simeon Brown: What value have Wellingtonians received from the $35 million spent on consultants for Let’s Get Wellington Moving, when only $253,000 has been spent on actual construction?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Wellington was let down for too many years, including by a former Prime Minister who wrote it off as “a dying city”. Our Government disagrees with that assessment and is finally making the investments in a transport system fit for a first world, thriving capital city. Anyone who actually knows anything about how major transport programmes work, including how one might go about establishing a mass rapid transit system, will understand that before construction can occur, there needs to be investment in design, planning, and consenting, and that is what we are getting on with.

Question No. 10—Health (Māori Health)

10. to the Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health): What recent announcement has he made regarding the interim Māori Health Authority?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This morning I was at the Takapūwāhia Marae with my colleague the Hon Andrew Little to announce the interim Māori Health Authority’s first commissioning budget, totalling just over $22 million in funding. This first commissioning budget is a notable further step forward in delivering Pae Ora or Healthy Futures for whānau across New Zealand. I am pleased that the interim Māori Health Authority is getting to work quickly to commission providers to deliver services that will make a huge difference in the lives of Māori whānau.

💬 Arena Williams: Why is this funding necessary?

💬 Hon PEENI HENARE: For too long, the health system has failed to address the disproportionate health outcomes that Māori face. On average, Māori die seven years younger than other population groups, and this situation cannot be allowed to continue. The initial investment we outlined today will start to lay the foundation for the authority’s ongoing role supporting kaupapa Māori health services to improve outcomes for whānau and I can’t reiterate enough that this Government is serious about improving the health outcomes for all New Zealanders. The funding announcement today will not only support Māori whānau, it will also improve the overall health outcomes for Aotearoa New Zealand.

💬 Arena Williams: So how will this funding help improve health outcomes for whānau?

💬 Hon PEENI HENARE: Through its first commissioning budget, the interim Māori Health Authority has outlined its first commitments to embed and expand Te Ao Māori solutions across our health system, including in areas such as mātauranga Māori initiatives and the further development of the Māori health workforce. The interim Māori Health Authority will now work with iwi-Māori partnership boards to create services that could include health education, pūrākau, resource development, and models centred on addressing the wider social and environmental detriments of health in their communities. This is about putting whānau first and supporting new and different approaches that work for Māori, whānau, and their communities.

Question No. 11—Local Government

11. to the Minister of Local Government: Does she stand by her statement on the Three Waters reform that “There are two areas of the Three Waters reform programme that I underestimated, and I acknowledge that’s my responsibility”, and is she confident it is only two areas she underestimated?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, and to elaborate further I stand by my comment that it is not widely understood by the public just how bad the situation in relation to the current performance and future challenges of Three Waters is. It shouldn’t take burst pipes, waste-water overflows, or unsafe drinking water with boiled water notices for us to take notice and care about water infrastructure and service delivery. After three years of review the evidence was so overwhelming there was no other option than to proceed with reform. Continuing to ignore the problem in the face of now compelling evidence would be irresponsible and the status quo is not an option.

💬 Simon Watts: Does she stand by her statement that “I underestimated that the public really knew what was happening with pipes under the ground, and they had a lot more knowledge about the trade-offs that councils were always making”; and if so, will she now give actual consideration to the alternatives like those proposed by Communities 4 Local Democracy?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes, I stand by my statements that the public did not know the trade-offs that councils were continuing to make between what was being spent above the ground and below the ground. And in addition to that, I consulted with local government to ensure the approach to reform of the Three Waters infrastructure and service delivery arrangements were one that kept the affordability issues for ratepayers in front of our opportunity to reform, as well as Treaty settlement obligations—which was a matter raised by the sector—as well as separating balance sheets to enable a financially sustainable model for the ongoing investment in waters infrastructure.

💬 Simon Watts: Does she stand by her statement that “the advertising campaign wasn’t the best way to tell the message”; and if so, will she apologise to local councils for spending $4 million in taxpayer dollars on a campaign blaming them for water infrastructure failures?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: As referred to in my response around a miscalculation of the sensitivity around the advertising campaign, I want to draw a line under the criticism on that issue because it was one where the sector felt that they were being blamed for decades of under-investment in waters infrastructure. But if we look at the budget that was appropriated—and that was around about $3.5 million—$2.8 million was spent in advertising, including TV advertising, print advertising, and social media advertising. I still stand by the view that we need to do more to educate the public with facts around the parlous state of the waters infrastructure network, and the need to invest more.

💬 Simon Watts: Has she also underestimated the ability of her water entities to achieve balance sheet separation and financial benefits; and if not, how can the public be confident given her recent underestimations?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I think the member might be conflating a number of things, because I’d like to acknowledge the contribution of the governance working group who recently, in their recommendations, identified a number of areas where we can strengthen the governance, representation, and local voice aspects of the Government’s reform programme to ensure that there is greater line of sight between the aspirations of community and the ability to invest in waters infrastructure. At the end of their recommendations, they go on to say that the Government will need to test those recommendations in relation to credit rating and the ability to separate balance sheets.

💬 Simon Watts: Given she now acknowledges she underestimated the public’s understanding of water infrastructure and trade-offs, will she recognise that the majority of the public rejects her reforms and so it’s time for her to rethink Three Waters?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I join with the local government sector who admit that further work needs to be done to ensure that the public gets good information about the parlous state of waters infrastructure and the need to invest more in that area. The modelling that we have done proves that there is around about $125 billion to $195 billion needed over the next 30 years to ensure greater resilience in our waters infrastructure. We need to find a financially sustainable way to achieve that. At the heart of our reform programme, we are trying to separate balance sheets between councils and the ability to invest in water infrastructure. The model that we have in front of us seriously enables that opportunity, and it will be a total sum benefit to the affordability aspects that ratepayers are currently challenged with.

Question No. 12—Transport

12. to the Minister of Transport: What recent steps has the Government taken to support New Zealanders to use public transport in response to the global energy shock?

Yesterday, the Government announced that, in response to the global energy shock we are experiencing, public transport fares will be halved for a period of three months to give commuters more options to change the way they travel. At a time of rising fuel prices, brought on in part by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Government has acted swiftly to encourage uptake of public transport by making it a more affordable alternative. It’s expected that this initiative will commence from approximately 1 April, working aside our local government partners, alongside a suite of other measures which will see significant increases in the take-home income of Kiwi families.

💬 Shanan Halbert: What are the benefits of reduced public transport fares for passengers?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Primarily, the reduced fares will place a lesser burden on those who might already be making use of the public transport system and make public transport a more viable alternative for families and those who otherwise might find the cost a barrier. Additionally, increasing uptake of public transport and changes in the way that we travel had been identified by the Climate Change Commission as a key factor in reducing emissions from the transport sector.

💬 Shanan Halbert: What are the flow-on benefits, if any, that this will have for public transport in the coming months?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The last two years have been a challenging time for public transport operators in New Zealand. With a reduction in patronage, we’ve dealt with the impacts of COVID and now the Omicron wave. This initiative has the dual benefit, therefore, of incentivising those who would otherwise be using their cars to use a bus or a train or a ferry, and also supports potentially greater farebox revenue for local authorities and Waka Kotahi to make the services more sustainable.

💬 Simeon Brown: Will the half-price public transport announced yesterday include the Te Huia train service between Hamilton and Auckland, which already receives a subsidy of over $280 per passenger?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Yes, the service is covered as a public transport service. The point of the announcement yesterday was to ensure that more Kiwis have access to more affordable transport options. That is the direction that this Government believes that we need to move in, and it’s disappointing but not surprising that the member opposite doesn’t seem to support that.