Oral Questions

1. to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement that “we have a responsibility to do our very best as a Government through trying times to ensure that we are lifting the outcomes” and “This has been our focus the entire time we’ve been in office”?

Yes, and whilst there is more to do, I remain very proud of what we have achieved across our time in office. On our COVID response, we’ve the lowest rate of COVID cases, hospitalisations, and deaths in the OECD. On our economic response, we’ve record low unemployment and GDP is up. We have more than 175,000 people who have taken up our free apprenticeships and targeted trades training, and our Apprenticeship Boost subsidy has helped employers keep on more than 40,000 apprentices. We’ve made the largest increase to benefits in a generation and lifted incomes through our Families Package. Our income support changes since 2017 mean more than 100,000 families are, on average, $175 a week better off. All nine child poverty indicators have improved under Labour, and 66,500 children have been lifted out of poverty since our time in office. More than 200,000 children receive free, healthy lunches in schools. I could go on, but on this side of the House I stand by our statement. We are focused on lifting the wellbeing and the economic wellbeing of New Zealanders, unlike that member, who is focused on removing the top tax bracket for those on $180,000 or more.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Can she explain how the Te Huia train from Auckland to Hamilton, currently costing $280 for every passenger, is a good outcome for the $100 million of taxpayers’ money spent on it to date?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Whereas in contrast to our investment in rail and in alternative transport options, I notice on that side of the House, in the words, I believe, of Matt Doocey, “We want to make roads great again.” I notice as well that the member, when it comes to the challenge of climate change, wants to rely almost solely on the emissions trading scheme (ETS). Now, if he were to do that, that could lead to $1.30 extra on petrol prices and, according to the Climate Change Commission, would mean that one in 10 farms would be converted to pine forests. If that member’s sole goal when it comes to all focus on climate change is nothing but letting the ETS do the heavy lifting, I can tell you that he’s going to have a hard time with rural New Zealand and every New Zealander who will feel it solely at the pump.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Did the $51 million spent on the cancelled bike bridge deliver a good outcome for taxpayers?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, this is where we have been focused on making sure that we are seeing mode shift in New Zealand. Now, again, here we have an opportunity to link up significant transport projects, including rail to the airport, with the third harbour crossing, which, if I recall, the member’s party used to support. That was part of the shift that we’ve made in our decision making. On this side of the House, we’re willing to make bold infrastructure decisions. On that side, we see the continued delay, and that is the reason we inherited such a lack of investment in New Zealand’s infrastructure.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Does she agree with the statement that one of the most important things we can do to address climate change is to build more roads, as asserted on breakfast television this morning by the Leader of the Opposition?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I do share a concern that the member has that that seems to be the only plan that the member across the aisle has. I guess the issue that I have is that on the one hand, the National Party purports to support the zero carbon legislation, and yet have voted against almost every single action that has been taken to make sure that we do that. Unless we invest in this transition, New Zealanders will bear the brunt of future energy shocks, New Zealand will bear the brunt of severe weather events, and primary producers will bear the brunt as exporters. This is not an option—we must move.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Is she aware that the famed bike bridge was, in fact, cancelled, despite us spending $51 million of taxpayers’ money on it?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If I recall, the previous MP for Auckland Central, one Nikki Kaye, was not the only person who supported the link across the harbour bridge, and, in fact, there were other National Party MPs who did as well. The fact is that, unfortunately, that proposal was no longer possible for structural reasons. When we, of course, heard of that information, we made sure that we had alternative investment plans so that we could continue the much-needed mode shift that Aucklanders are seeking.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Before I take any more supplementary questions, the noise from my left is too loud. There are at least three members who I’ve had to call to order and have kept on interjecting after I’ve called them to order. If that occurs again, I will regard it as grossly disorderly.

💬 Hon Michael Wood: Thank you. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Government has brought forward planning for an alternative Waitematā harbour crossing from the 2040s, with options to be consulted on later this year?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I can, and, as I reflected in my earlier answer, this is part of an integrated approach to significant transport plans in Auckland. Auckland has suffered the consequences of a lack of investment in major infrastructure projects; we suffer the consequences and impacts on productivity. Previously, the National Party had been in favour of expediting the third harbour crossing. It is disappointing to hear that they are now panning those plans.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why, despite job vacancies being at an all-time high, are 60,000 more Kiwis stuck on the job seeker benefit compared to when she took office, and is that an acceptable outcome when it’s costing taxpayers $1.6 billion more every year?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, if you want to compare apples and apples, then you always look at the rate of people on a main benefit as a proportion of population, and, in that regard, where we are is comparable to the time when the National Government was in office in the global financial crisis. And many would argue the shock of COVID has been far greater than it was at that time. We are also seeing record departures from our main benefits as well, and that is because, unlike the National Party when they were in office, we have taken an active case-management approach to support people into work. We have Mana in Mahi, we have the Apprenticeship Boost, we have He Poutama Rangatahi—all programmes to support those who may be on Government support, particularly our young people, into work.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Can she explain how spending on education has increased by $6 billion a year but there has been no improvement in literacy or numeracy outcomes for Kiwi kids?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: This is where I would, again, put to the member—you cannot have it both ways. The member thinks that there is no issue with inequity in this country—no issue with inequity—and yet education and health are areas where we, time and time again, see the impact of disparities in our society playing out in our education system in our outcomes. Yes, we have spent more because the last Government didn’t build new classrooms, didn’t grow our teacher roll, and didn’t make sure we were dealing with population growth. And what we are still catching up on is the fact that there was not enough focus on equity to improve outcomes across all of our populations: Māori, Pacific, children with disabilities—and that is what we continue to repair.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she believe delivering just 1,300 out of a promised 100,000 KiwiBuild homes, after almost five years of trying, is a good outcome for spending more than a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: National built a hundred houses over nine years. I will not be lectured by a party that, instead of building public houses, sold them and pulled them down. Over 8,000 public housing places have been created under this Government—more than any Government since the 1970s. And, still, we know there is more to do. That member’s answer seems to be simply the Resource Management Act reform—and we’re doing that too.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that Kiwis struggling with the cost of living crisis have a right to be angry at her Government’s shocking record of spending more of their money but delivering worse outcomes?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In 2020, as a percentage of GDP, we spent less than National did in 2009. In 2021, we spent less as a percentage of GDP than National did in 2010. We’ve taken on a similar amount of debt to respond to COVID-19 as National did in its first five years. If the member’s so interested in outcomes, I am happy to have that debate toe to toe—we had children living in cars; we had a mental health crisis; we had an under-investment and no investment in hospital infrastructure, classrooms, and all of the things that determine the outcomes for our children in this country. In five years, we have turned around those stats and we will continue to do so. But when we go from no investment to investment, I would happily debate outcomes on every single term.

Question No. 2—Finance

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

Last week’s Xero’s small-business index bounced back in February as strong sales supported growth as firms grappled with the initial challenge of Omicron. The index was well above average, at 114.5, largely driven by small-business sales and wage growth. Sales surged 13.3 percent, year on year, led by the construction and manufacturing sectors. Hospitality was the only sector to see a decline. Wage growth picked up pace to 4.3 percent—compared to 3.8 percent in January—led by construction and hospitality. Job growth was 3.3 percent. Xero said it was encouraging to see our small-business community performing well over February but noted that there are challenges—particularly for the hospitality sector—and that we needed to be doing everything we can to support those small businesses, as we have been doing.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What reports has he seen on the support available for businesses dealing with Omicron?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the Government’s targeted COVID support payment is helping viable but vulnerable businesses through Omicron. So far, a total of $956 million has been paid out under the three fortnightly COVID support payments to 193,233 applicants. Auckland has received 53 percent of the payments, going by business, followed by Christchurch on 9 percent and Wellington on 8 percent. By sector, the accommodation and hospitality sector received 16 percent; construction, 14 percent; and retail trade, 8 percent. This is about providing cash flow and confidence and helping to protect jobs and support New Zealand businesses through this very difficult time.

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

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the export sector is continuing to support the economy with exports rising 22 percent to $5.5 billion in February. The main contribution, once again, came from dairy products, which rose 37 percent to $1.7 billion in the month, led by higher prices for milk powder and butter. Meat sector sales rose 21 percent to $981 million, while mechanical machinery and equipment rose 29 percent to $151 million. On an annual basis, exports were up 9.8 percent to $64.9 billion. Our exporters are contributing strongly to the economy, and I’m sure all members of this House would like to thank them for their work in such a volatile and uncertain environment.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with ANZ’s view that “Concern about the domestic economic outlook is rising, and is the top factor constraining investment by quite some way”, and is he concerned that the cost of living is growing faster in New Zealand than in Australia?

As I’ve said a number of times in the House, I acknowledge that 2022 is a challenging year for New Zealand businesses and households. Forecasts of economic growth this year have been pared back, but they do remain positive as New Zealand deals with Omicron, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the ongoing disruption of the pandemic on global supply chains. As I mentioned yesterday to the member, we are in a strong position to be able to continue to support New Zealanders through this uncertainty. As to the second part of the question, there are a wide range of reasons for why inflation is at a particular level, in a particular country, including at what stage of the pandemic each country is at. I would note that, looking at the December quarter numbers, the two countries’ inflation rates are not dissimilar, with New Zealand at 1.4 percent and Australia at 1.3 percent.

💬 Nicola Willis: Is he aware that inflation in New Zealand for the year ending December was 5.9 percent while, for the same period in Australia, it was 3.5 percent, and has he seen a single forecast projecting New Zealand’s inflation to be less in the coming year than it will be in Australia?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the question, yes, I am aware of that, and I’m sure the member is also aware that inflation pressures are being felt all around the world, and we recently had the United Kingdom Budget, reflecting inflation projections of well over 7 percent. This is affecting people all over the world. It’s the reason why this Government has a focus on making sure those the most affected by price rises—those on low and middle incomes—are supported, rather than cutting the top tax rates so that those earning over $180,000 would get the benefit, as the member would prefer.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does he agree with ASB that New Zealand’s inflation outlook is “worryingly high”, and what steps, if any, is the Government taking to support monetary policy to keep a lid on New Zealand’s soaring levels of inflation?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: All New Zealanders will be concerned about rising prices, and that’s the reason why we’ve taken the initiatives that we have. I’m glad that the member references monetary policy there, because that is indeed the role of the Reserve Bank, to be able to make sure that we have price stability. Alongside that, we will continue to operate a fiscal policy that is carefully balanced, making sure that we invest in the long term, making sure that we keep our debt levels under control, and making sure that all New Zealanders get a fair go. If the member wants to talk about things that might add to inflation, untargeted tax cuts that National is proposing that would benefit the highest income earners don’t stand up very well.

💬 Nicola Willis: What is his explanation for rents rising faster than ever—up $50 a week in the past year alone—and is it seriously his position that international factors are to blame for this growth in a core component of New Zealanders’ cost of living?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ll give the member this. That’s not all about international factors. That’s about the fact that the National Party oversaw the sell-off of State houses and managed to build a hundred affordable houses over nine years. It’s about supply; houses don’t get built right away. On this side of the House, we are now building houses at a faster rate than any Government since the 1970s, trying to make up for the member’s party’s mistakes.

💬 Nicola Willis: Is it now the position of New Zealand’s Minister of Finance that the reason our country has experienced record growth in rental costs is because five years ago some State houses were transferred from ownership by the Crown to ownership by community housing organisations?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, actually, that not very clever explanation doesn’t wash. The National Party needs to own its records. They sold off State houses in the middle of a housing crisis.

💬 Nicola Willis: Why does he keep blaming COVID for New Zealand’s poor economic performance when, despite Australia currently experiencing a surge in cases, consumer confidence surveys show Australians feel far more confident about their economic prospects than New Zealanders do?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member might like to talk the New Zealand economy down, but I invite her to read the IMF’s report where they congratulated New Zealand not just on the way that we dealt with COVID from a health perspective but also from an economic perspective. We have 3.2 percent unemployment in New Zealand at the moment. We have debt levels that are lower than the countries we choose to compare ourselves with. We have a thriving export sector and we have good prospects for New Zealand. New Zealand’s economy is in good shape to get through COVID-19.

💬 Nicola Willis: Why does the Minister keep congratulating himself for his economic approach of more taxes, more regulation, and more poorly executed spending when the cost of living is soaring and New Zealanders’ confidence is collapsing?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The IMF congratulated New Zealand for its economic performance. That is a result of the hard work of businesses and of households right across New Zealand. New Zealanders can be extremely proud of what they have managed through COVID-19. Now we’re in a strong position to be able to recover and rebuild from there.

💬 Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister confirm reports that during January of this year Australia’s consumer confidence plunged to levels not seen since 1992 as a result of a wave of Omicron similar, of course, to the experience New Zealand is having, which we too will recover from?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, and as I said in my primary answer, an impact on the economy is often comparable to where we are in the pandemic cycle. New Zealand is in the peak of our Omicron outbreak, but we are extremely well positioned to be able to come out of this. What, however, would not help us is untargeted tax cuts that the National Party is proposing for people earning over $180,000 a year or, for that matter, increasing expenditure on everything from—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order. I seek leave for a snap debate forthwith so that the Deputy Prime Minister, who has relied on his attacks on the National Party over the last week and a half, can better explain his position and—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. The member knows that he may not interrupt an answer for that sort of approach. I suggest that if the member wants to seek leave for such a debate, he could do one at the end of question time, and it might well be granted. There’s a general debate. [Interruption] Well, I think the Minister was rudely interrupted, and I’m going to let him start again.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Oh, very good, Mr Speaker. Yes, as I said in my primary answer earlier on, Australia and New Zealand are experiencing the pandemic at different times. In New Zealand’s case we are in the middle of Omicron and it is having a major impact on us. What we do know, though, is that we are in a strong position to recover from that. We also know that the kind of approach being favoured by the National Party of tax cuts to those who earn more than $180,000, while at the same time claiming that they’re going to be increasing expenditure on health and defence and housing, simply doesn’t add up.

Question No. 4—Energy and Resources

4. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What recent announcements has the Government made on renewable energy for Māori and public housing?

One hundred and eighty families living in Māori and public homes are set to benefit from locally generated clean, cheap power as a result of Government funding for small-scale renewable energy trials. This includes 12 projects to develop renewable products which will also help to bring energy independence to remote communities. This programme is in addition to other Government action to support people with their energy costs including the winter energy payment, Warmer Kiwi Homes, and cutting petrol excise by 25c per litre.

💬 Arena Williams: What are some examples of projects previously funded by the Māori Housing Renewable Energy Fund?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: One example is Te Arawa Whānau Ora, who installed solar panels on 14 homes around Rotorua last year. Over summer, those households saved on average about $100 on their monthly power bills—a reduction of between 30 and 50 percent. These projects also support broader energy benefits such as supporting Māori energy businesses, building skills, and enabling mana whenua to return to traditional energy sources.

💬 Arena Williams: What else is the Government doing to increase the uptake of renewable energy for public housing?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Kāinga Ora is currently trialling solar panels on 100 public homes in Lower Hutt and Porirua. These are expected to be installed by October. Kāinga Ora is planning further solar installations throughout the country. By 2024, approximately 1,000 public homes will be fitted with renewable energy systems; 400 properties are already committed to across Whangārei, Christchurch, Nelson, Napier, and Auckland.

💬 Chris Bishop: What steps, if any, has the Minister taken to make sure that any public announcements around Kāinga Ora comply with public sector neutrality, particularly concerning Labour Party MPs and candidates?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’m sure the Minister of Energy and Resources would be happy to talk to the Minister of Housing but these steps have been well traversed by the Minister of Housing in this House, including conversations—

💬 SPEAKER: I shouldn’t have allowed the question. I apologise.

Question No. 5—Finance

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question—

Order! Mr Goldsmith, be quiet.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I wonder if you’d consider awarding the ACT Party an extra supplementary question for that interruption.

I will consider it.

💬 David Seymour: Thank you. Your consideration is appreciated.

5. to the Minister of Finance: What was core Crown tax revenue forecast to be for the financial year to June 2021 in the 2020 Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update, and how much tax revenue was actually collected for that year?

As the 2020 Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update (PREFU) outlines in its very first paragraph, it was set against the backdrop of continued uncertainty about New Zealand’s economic outlook due to the COVID-19 pandemic, where Treasury in the PREFU warned the effects of COVID-19 on the economy were expected to be more persistent than before, and as such had lowered its nominal GDP forecast compared to Budget 2020. PREFU included a forecast for core Crown tax revenue in the year to June 2021 of $84.660 billion, or 28 percent of nominal GDP, which forecast at the PREFU to be $32.9 billion at 30 June 2021. PREFU also forecast net debt to be 43 percent of GDP at 30 June 2021, or $130.2 billion in nominal terms. I have good news for the member: New Zealand’s economy was stronger in the June 2021 year than forecast in the PREFU. Nominal GDP was reported at $339.7 billion for the year to June 2021. As a result of the stronger economy which led to higher business profits, more people in work, and higher wages, tax revenue in the year to June 2021 was $98 billion, or 28.8 percent of GDP. This also meant lower net debt, at 30.1 percent of GDP—that’s $102 billion versus the $130 billion forecast at PREFU.

Before the member asks a supplementary, I have given consideration to his request. I will grant it by transferring one question from the National Party to ACT. Supplementary question—

💬 David Seymour: Squid Game!

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I ask why you have decided to take one supplementary off National and give it to the ACT Party? Mr Goldsmith, I think, basically laughed—momentarily—at the start of a question. That is not out of order.

I was actually considering whether it should be one or two, and I have decided to be lenient.

💬 David Seymour: So did the Minister’s answer mean he expected $84 billion and he got $98 billion, meaning he ended up with $14 billion more tax than he’d expected?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That’s the Treasury’s forecast in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update, and so yes, there were $14 billion more. As I noted in the primary answer, it was a reasonably volatile and uncertain time in the global economy.

💬 David Seymour: What happened to the extra $14 billion of tax he didn’t expect to collect? Or does he just not trust Treasury’s forecasts?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. Although a number of things happened, but one of the main outcomes was lower net debt, as I noted in my primary answer.

💬 David Seymour: How is it possible that the Government can suddenly find itself with an additional $14 billion and not be able to afford a single cent to cut income taxes for households that are being squeezed from every direction and do not benefit from the various benefit increases and other transfers the Government seems so obsessed with?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’ve traversed this ground a number of times in the House. There are many different priorities that fall on the Government, particularly in the period that we’re covering through the member’s question. As we dealt with the end of the Delta outbreak, as we dealt with further COVID costs and as we invested as we need to do in long-term issues like health and education and in housing.

💬 David Seymour: Is not the real reason for the Government’s tax windfall that inflation also took off beyond the Treasury’s forecasts, being 3.3 percent in the year to last June, instead of the 1.2 percent that was forecast, pushing up the price of everything, with the Government profiting $14 billion from the cost of living crisis.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No doubt, inflation has been a factor in this. I would also note that the Government, not only when there’s an inflationary environment, takes more money in, but we have many more outgoings as well, as a result of inflation increasing. While the member’s on that topic though, I do note that the PREFU forecast wage growth of 0.9 percent but it turned out to be 4 percent, so wages grew during that period.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Minister accept that inflation is giving more and more taxes to the Government, but the Government is not prepared to give anything back by letting New Zealanders keep more of their own money when they’re squeezed from every direction?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As again we’ve covered in this House, we recognise the significant impact of the cost of living increases on New Zealanders, and it’s the reason why we have added a packaged on 1 April that has seen a significant lift in the incomes of low and middle income New Zealanders.

💬 David Seymour: If the Government gets another happy surprise for itself of greater tax revenue than forecast in this financial year, might it finally be able to let those hard-working families squeezed from every direction keep just a little bit more of the money that they earn?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Obviously I will never pre-empt future Budget decisions, let alone one, using the member’s dates, that would be in Budget 2023. What I can say is that on this side of the House, we’ll continue to focus on a balanced approach. That means yes, we try to keep debt low. That means yes, we try to make sure that we’re investing in the long-term things that New Zealanders need. Those New Zealanders he’s referring to deserve a health system that means that they get good quality healthcare wherever they are in New Zealand. They deserve for their children to be in classrooms that are warm and dry. They deserve to know that there will be good public transport and roading networks right across New Zealand. Those things don’t come for free either.

💬 David Seymour: How can the Minister explain the massive growth in tax revenue and his refusal to cut taxes by talking about health and education, when on the same figures total health and education expenditure was actually less than forecast?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, I do think it is important that the member remembers that if we look at the most up-to-date forecast with the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, core Crown tax revenue will be below 30 percent of GDP across the forecast period. That is around about where it has been for a number of years. On this side of the House, I think we understand that there has to be a balance when you put a Budget together. Just saying that you’re going to spend more but cut taxes and reduce debt does not add up, and that is the problem for the Opposition at the moment.

Question No. 6—Conservation

6. to the Minister of Conservation: Does she stand by her statement yesterday that “The Department of Conservation has advised me that there are currently no burrows with any sign of kororā in the rock wall at Pūtiki Bay”; if so, what does she say to the Protect Pūtiki group, who documented footage of kororā at Pūtiki Bay last night?

I thank the member for her question and ongoing advocacy for the community at te ākau o Pūtiki. As the member will be aware, I take responsibilities as the conservation Minister, including the protection of our taonga species incredibly seriously, which has led to the work we’re doing to review the Wildlife Act, the partial review of the conservation law, and centring the Aotearoa New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy at the heart of conservation here in Aotearoa. With respect to the footage referenced: yes, I can confirm that I have seen that footage, and, consequently, made further inquiries today to my officials, expressing my dissatisfaction that the context of the information in which it sits was not provided to me in a way that I considered was fulsome or adequate. While I stand by the statement I made yesterday, in the context of which it was made, it’s become clear to me that the information was inaccurate, including that kororā have sometimes been returning to those burrows in the evening. Further, I can confirm to the member that in subsequent inquiries made today, I have been advised that since the authority was granted under the Wildlife Act, no kororā have to date been identified at the site during the period of works, but, in the event that they are, can be relocated in alignment with the authority granted under the Wildlife Act.

Chlöe Swarbrick: When granting a permit to move kororā, what assessment, if any, did the Department of Conservation make of the advice of Professor John Cockrem that his conservative estimate is at least 60 kororā live in the full rock wall?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I’m advised that the Department of Conservation, and primarily their ecologists, work closely with Dr Cockrem and leaned into the advice of many of the community groups there on Waiheke Island, including Protect Pūtiki, various bird rescue groups, and the like. My understanding from the information that the department has provided to me is, first, that many of the references to the information provided were with respect to the broader consents that have been granted by the Auckland Council, with respect to the broader marina development. With the specific reference to just the application under the Wildlife Act, I have been advised that, on balance, whilst the bird, the kororā, live in that rock wall and do return to that area sometimes in the evening, that during the daytimes and during the period which the works will be undertaken, there is a very low chance, as I best understand, that those kororā will be on site. However, when granting the permit, those are at the forefront of the Department of Conservation’s considerations. They’re left with two options: (1) relocate those kororā in the event that they’re found; or (2) leave them there and let the works occur around them. On balance, the Department of Conservation made the determination that to grant the authority under the Wildlife Act was the best in the circumstances for the preservation of the kororā.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has the Department of Conservation conducted any on-site monitoring for the removal of the rock wall while it has gone ahead this week; if not, why not?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I understand from my inquiries made this morning that they have made observations with respect to the monitoring in building up to the granting of the permit. However, I have expressed very clearly my expectation as the Minister of Conservation that the department take an active role and be physically present to monitor the works whilst they’re being undertaken when that work is ongoing through the period of the permit that’s left to run.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What can members of the public do if they find evidence of kororā in distress at Pūtiki Bay, at the site of construction?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: That’s a great question from the member. There’s a couple of things that can be done. Of course, when any member of the public does see any taonga species in any form of distress, they can ring the Department of Conservation—0800 DOC HOT—and they will be put through to people that will advise them on the best next steps. I can also assure the member that a number of inquiries have been put through to the Department of Conservation over the past year, with respect to the Pūtiki area, and the department have advised me that they’ve acted swiftly to respond to those inquiries.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Minister agree that the law as it stands is failing to protect these kororā, and, if so, what advocacy has she undertaken for improving protection of native species, such as kororā, in consultation with the Minister for the Environment in the proposed new Natural and Built Environments Bill?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I agree with the member that the conservation law that governs some of our taonga species, across the board, I consider, is inadequate, it’s outdated, and it needs some fundamental reform. That, of course, needs to be done in partnership with communities at place and it will take some time. We have undertaken work since I have taken office, working in collaboration with a number of environmental non-governmental organisations to do the fundamental first review work that needs to be done of the conservation law environment. With respect to the natural and built environments, and the resource management reforms more generally, my colleague the Minister Parker and myself are ardent advocates for biodiversity and will ensure that that’s a key linchpin in the reforms ahead.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order. I seek leave to table these images of kororā from Phil Stebbing, taken in August 2021 at Pūtiki Bay. They’re, of course, of kororā at Pūtiki Bay.

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

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

Question No. 7—COVID-19 Response

7. to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What recent changes have been made to vaccination requirements in New Zealand?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. From tomorrow, young people aged 16 and 17 will be able to receive a free booster dose of the Pfizer vaccine at least six months after completing their primary course. They’ll be able to do so by visiting any walk-in vaccination clinic around the country. A booster dose is particularly recommended for 16- and 17-year-olds who are at higher risk of severe COVID-19 symptoms and hospitalisation, and that includes those who are immunocompromised or who are living with a family member who is immunocompromised, and our Māori and Pacific rangatahi.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: How many rangatahi will now be eligible for this booster and what assurance has he had on the safety of this decision?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I can advise that 36,000 rangatahi aged between 16 and 17 years old will be eligible to receive a booster dose. Medsafe follows a very robust approvals process to ensure that all vaccines we use here in New Zealand meet acceptable standards for safety, quality, and efficacy. We know that immunity to the virus does wane over time, so getting a booster is the best protection someone can have against COVID-19. It’s also a reminder to any New Zealander who hasn’t yet had their booster that even if they’ve already had COVID-19, getting a booster at least three months after they’ve tested positive for COVID-19 can help to reduce the risk of being re-infected and passing it on to others. It also reduces the chances of becoming very ill and ending up in hospital.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: What other recent changes have been made to vaccination requirements in New Zealand?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: From Monday, New Zealanders no longer have to use a vaccine pass, or a My Vaccine Pass. While vaccine passes have been extremely useful in helping us to get to high rates of vaccination and they were particularly useful in our fight against Delta, with around 95 percent of our eligible population now at least double-vaccinated, we don’t need that tool any longer. Businesses that want to continue to use My Vaccine Pass, however, will be able to continue to do so, but they’ll need to have a justification for doing that, taking into account the latest public health advice.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: What will these changes mean for Government mandates and what should employers do if these mandates no longer apply to them?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Government vaccine mandates for all sectors, except for health and care workers, prison workers, and border workers, have been removed. They remain for health and care workers and prison staff because they come into contact with a lot of people who are at high risk of serious illness from COVID-19, and, of course, our border workers because they are the first people who’d be likely to be exposed to any new variants of concern that emerge internationally. Employers who have had a Government mandate applying to their workforce should undertake or update a work health and safety risk assessment, reflecting updated public health advice to determine what controls are appropriate for their workplaces.

Question No. 8—Immigration

8. to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by his statements and actions?

Yes. In particular I stand by the Government’s plan to reconnect with the world. Over the last two years, New Zealanders have relied on our Government to take a careful approach to the border, and this caution has paid off, with lives and livelihoods protected on a scale not seen elsewhere in the developed world. We are now taking a staged and balanced approach which will see New Zealand open up fully throughout the course of 2022. We’ve already welcomed back highly skilled workers and working holidaymakers, and next week we’ll also welcome back people offshore with a valid work or student visa—up to 5,000 students—to study in semester two, and also we’ll welcome back our Australian brothers and sisters.

💬 Erica Stanford: Why has he not changed the criteria of the 2021 residency visa so that all migrant nurses are eligible, regardless of their visa type, to help fill the shortfall of 4,000 nurses as identified by the Minister of Health on Sunday?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The criteria of the 2021 resident visa was very much focused on making sure we could secure the workforce that have been here and contributing over the last two years. The primary purpose of people’s visas had to be work, and we have given certainty to a number of people who have already applied and been given residency, but, importantly, also given their employers certainty about retaining their staff.

💬 Erica Stanford: In light of that answer, then, what does he say to GP Paul Jones and his anaesthetist wife, Fleur Harding, working in New Zealand, who recently left New Zealand because they were on the wrong visa type to be eligible for the 2021 residence visa, and why won’t he change the criteria to include all doctors?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Again, part of the bedrock criteria for being eligible for the 2021 resident visa was being on the appropriate work visa. If people were here on the likes of a working holiday visa and acting as a locum, their primary purpose was being here to work and have a holiday, not to work in New Zealand.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. For two supplementary questions in a row, the Minister has been asked by my colleague Erica Stanford around why criteria haven’t been changed, and in both answers—I let the first one go—the Minister didn’t get anywhere near addressing the actual question that my colleague asked.

💬 SPEAKER: I can’t focus two supplementaries back; the last one answered the question absolutely. He was very clear.

💬 Erica Stanford: Is he concerned, based on numbers from the Immigration website, that the 2021 resident visa is on track to grant an extra 40,000 to 60,000 migrants residency, above the 165,000 approved by Cabinet, yet still manages to miss out the doctors and nurses that we desperately need?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I’m not concerned about making sure that we give more people certainty that have made a commitment to New Zealand, especially over the last two years, to make sure that they can be here to work. The criteria are clear, and the people who are eligible have to be here primarily on a work visa that is focused on work.

Question No. 9—Environment

9. to the Minister for the Environment: How is the Government improving the planning system to build more houses and infrastructure?

The Government has removed barriers within our planning system, enabling the building of more houses and infrastructure. Since 2017, the number of houses consented annually in Auckland has doubled from 10,000 to over 20,000, with townhouses and flats increasing fivefold from 2,000 to 10,000 per annum. This Government has ensured that our major cities must enable further intensification in their plans by August 2022. Under the new rules, up to three homes three stories high can be built on most sites without the need for a resource consent, and I acknowledge the support of the National, Green, and Māori Parties for this significant change to planning laws. We’re far from done. We plan to introduce legislation this year that will repeal and replace the Resource Management Act (RMA).

💬 Rachel Brooking: What reports has he received about the inadequacy of New Zealand’s planning system?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m sure that many members will have read with interest the report that came from the Infrastructure Commission this week, which found that New Zealand’s “prohibitively expensive housing market could have been prevented by congestion mitigation policies and less restrictive planning rules.” The commission says that when urban planning policies limit development up in the centre of the city or out at the fringes, it leads to both reduced housing supply and higher housing prices. They also note that unless the planning system is very specific about prioritising housing and infrastructure as core objectives, amenity concerns about urban and natural character will prevail over building the homes that New Zealanders need. The commission is correct, and prioritising a massive increase in housing infrastructure is a focus of the planning system reforms.

💬 Rachel Brooking: How will the repeal and replacement of the RMA enable more houses and infrastructure?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: The RMA takes too long, costs too much, and hasn’t protected the environment. It has imposed significant costs on both the natural environment and developers by often leaving individual consenting decisions to resolve higher-level planning issues, enabling nimbyism to strangle housing. The reform will create more certainty about what development will be permitted to take place, reducing costs and delays for developers and other participants, and further increasing housing supply.

Question No. 10—Defence

10. to the Minister of Defence: Does he stand by his statement that “We’ve already put towards Cabinet a number of options, which include some lethal support”; if so, what lethal support was included?

Yes. Cabinet continues to look at the most significant contributions New Zealand can offer that will make a material difference to Ukraine. Our support to date has been comprehensive; it includes military intelligence, economic sanctions, trade tariffs on Russian goods, humanitarian aid, providing visas for family members to shelter in New Zealand, through to support for criminal investigation in the International Criminal Court. We have always said we will continue to consider what more we can do and that nothing is off the table, given the unprecedented nature of this invasion by Russia.

💬 SPEAKER: No. It is a very clear question, which had two parts. The Minister’s addressed the first part, but he hasn’t addressed the second.

💬 Hon PEENI HENARE: As the Minister of Defence, my job is to inquire of Defence what best support mechanisms we can offer to Ukraine. Ultimately, Cabinet makes that decision, and Cabinet has made a decision and will continue to assess the situation to make sure that we can respond accordingly.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, he’s made a statement publically, saying that he took a range of possible supports to Cabinet. He’s been asked on notice in the House what those other supports included; surely he’s required to answer that question and tell us what they were?

💬 SPEAKER: He is either required to address that question, which he hasn’t done yet, or to indicate that it’s not in the public interest to do so—and quite often in the Defence area, you do get to that area. But I would have thought that people who had read the news might know the answer.

💬 Hon PEENI HENARE: Then, it isn’t in the best interests of the public to know that.

💬 Dr James McDowall: Does he support Cabinet’s refusal to send any of our Javelin anti-tank missile systems to help defend Ukraine from the atrocities being committed against them by the Russian Federation?

💬 Hon PEENI HENARE: We haven’t made a decision specifically on that, and I will reiterate the point that Cabinet will continue to make the appropriate decisions which are in line with the needs of Ukraine.

💬 Dr James McDowall: Will the Minister take his proposal—to supply lethal aid—back to Cabinet for reconsideration in light of new revelations and mounting evidence of Russian war crimes against Ukrainian civilians, including children?

💬 Hon PEENI HENARE: My job is to always present options to Cabinet for consideration, and I will reiterate the point that we as a Government stand against the actions of Russia at this point in time and have supported the call for a war tribunal to make sure that, for those atrocities, people are held to account.

💬 Dr James McDowall: If the Minister won’t commit to taking back the proposal, or presenting a new one to Cabinet, does he no longer stand by his decision to do so in the first place?

💬 Hon PEENI HENARE: That’s not what I said, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, I probably should have ruled the question out because it wasn’t what he said.

💬 Dr James McDowall: How bad does the situation in Ukraine have to get for the Minister to convince his colleagues that providing lethal support is the right thing to do?

💬 Hon PEENI HENARE: I reiterate the point that Cabinet considers a large number of options, and we’ve already moved very swiftly on quite a number of those. And I want to also echo the sentiments from our partners offshore—the UK in particular, who commends New Zealand for the actions and the swift action we have taken to date. They have committed to our working together to make sure that our response is in line with the need of Ukraine.

Question No. 11—Police

11. to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement, “I reject the premise that gang tensions have increased under this Government’s watch”; if so, how does she reconcile that with reported police intelligence, which states parts of the country have experienced unprecedented levels of gang violence in the past year?

I stand by the full context of all my answers at question time. In answer to the member’s second question, gangs have been a feature of New Zealand society for well over half a century. What police intelligence shows us is that the arrival of 501s in 2015 has fundamentally changed the nature of gangs, making them much more overt and sophisticated. This Government has no tolerance for gang violence and that is why we will continue to support police in their work to crack down on gangs by deploying 700 more organised crime staff and passing legislation to give them more tools to address gang violence.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Does she agree with Auckland Labour list MP Helen White, who wrote an article claiming gang activity—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Who was that? [Interruption] No, no, it was someone—

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: It was up the back there, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: Which member interjected?

💬 Simon Court: Mr Speaker, I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order. Fair’s fair, Mr Speaker. Last time you took one off the ACT Party. Could we have that one back, please?

💬 SPEAKER: The trouble is that they are finished for the day. Have they got any left tomorrow? [Interruption] All right, well the ACT Party lose one of its three questions tomorrow.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d like to speak in favour of Chris Bishop’s earlier point of order that you shouldn’t remove a question for such a trivial interruption.

💬 SPEAKER: Some people say that consistency is the last refuge of fools but I’ll stay consistent with this one. Mark Mitchell, you now have an extra supplementary, which I think gets you to four.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Does she agree with Auckland Labour list MP Helen White, who wrote an article claiming gang activity had increased in Auckland when just two days before the article was published she told the House she rejected the premise that gang tensions had increased under this Government’s watch?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I have said consistently this Government is concerned about crime and that’s why we boosted police funding by $450 million and deployed an additional 300 organised crime staff. Ms White acknowledges the impacts of COVID-19—that that has had on Auckland and that is why the Government has provided a range of supports to those affected. It’s also why we’ve put an additional 360 police on the beat in Auckland since we came to Government and set up the retail crime unit.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Is it correct that from January 2021 only 13 net new organised crime staff have been recruited?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: What is correct is our commitment to ensuring we have sufficient cops on the beat and they have sufficient resources in terms of funding and equipment and legislative tools. We are well on the way to meeting our targets for 1,800 new police, 700 being deployed into organised crime.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t think I can get that question any more tighter and it was very specific.

💬 SPEAKER: And the member knows if he asks a general first question he can’t expect the Minister to answer a specific supplementary. Just mentioning gangs is not enough to expect the Minister to come prepared with a detailed response to a very specific question.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Why under her watch are gangs regularly taking over public spaces and roads, abusing and putting members of the public at risk?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: There’s no doubt that gangs are a feature—a harmful feature—of our communities and that’s why this Government is committed to giving police the tools to crack down on gangs and gang crime. Funding 700 more organised crime staff, deploying the tactical response units—and that’s why we’ve introduced legislation to give police more tools.

💬 SPEAKER: Does the member want to use the final supplementary?

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: No obligation.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Have 501s increased gang tension in New Zealand?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Let’s not forget that Australia’s exporting of this gang problem to New Zealand began under National in 2015 and they responded by cutting the number of cops on the beat and we are playing catch up. I agree with Christopher Luxon that 501s are changing the nature of gangs in New Zealand and that is why we are funding the largest ever increase of organised crime staff, tightening up our gun laws, and increasing the police budget by more than 30 percent.

Question No. 12—Workplace Relations and Safety

12. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: How will Fair Pay Agreements improve outcomes for those on lower incomes?

In yesterday’s first reading of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill, we heard stories of front-line workers in some of our lowest-paid jobs: security guards, supermarket workers, and cleaners. The contribution of Kiwis performing some of the most essential work in our country has been systematically undervalued for too long. The Fair Pay Agreements Bill is about setting minimum pay and conditions for these types of work to improve outcomes for those on lower outcomes and, in turn, create fairer, safer, and more productive workplaces. Combined with other Government policies, such as increases to the minimum wage which have increased the wages of minimum-wage workers by $218 per week since 2017, this shows the Government’s commitment to supporting New Zealanders on low to middle incomes, boosting wages, and productivity.

💬 Camilla Belich: How do fair pay agreements encourage higher productivity?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Fair Pay Agreement Working Group, chaired by the Rt Hon Jim Bolger, identified that sector-based bargaining provides the opportunity for employers to invest and engage without the fear of being undercut by other employers engaged in a race to the bottom on wages. The working group considered that there may be mutual benefits for workers and employers through increased worker engagement, increased productivity, and better workplaces. It doesn’t take a giant leap to recognise that a more engaged workforce that values their work and is compensated fairly is likely to be more motivated and productive. We see a good example in Australia, where, with sector-based bargaining there for the past 40 years, they have a rate of labour productivity far higher than New Zealand does currently.

💬 Camilla Belich: Will fair pay agreements result in compulsory unionism and strike action by workers?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Categorically, no. The bill is explicit in its requirements that unionism remains voluntary and that the benefits of fair pay agreements apply to members of unions and people who are not members of unions. It also explicitly prevents recourse to industrial action either by employers or employees. Any information to the contrary is categorically false, and while I expect there to be vigorous debate around this issue, I encourage anyone engaged in the debate to do so on the merit and substance of the bill, to deal with the problems of low wages in New Zealand that we are trying to resolve, and not to engage in misinformation.