Oral Questions

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

Yes—and particularly this Government’s swift action to secure our economic recovery in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that record inflation is pushing more people into higher tax brackets even though their real incomes aren’t increasing; and if so, will she address this at the Budget?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, as a Government we have acknowledged the impact that inflation is having on the cost of living. Of course, we’ve canvassed in this House, many times before, the global reasons why we are seeing that increase in inflation in New Zealand. The Government has responded by taking targeted action. The 1 April changes mean that 60 percent of families have seen an increase in their family tax credit. On 1 May, the winter energy payment is also acting as cushion for superannuitants and those on Government support. We have repeatedly said, though, it’s not our intention—as it has been the National Party’s—to have a response that includes tax cuts for those on top tax brackets, including those on incomes over $180,000, because we’ve wanted to target our support.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Will there be any tax relief in the Budget for middle-income households?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, I’m not going to speak to the specifics of the Budget. But the member, in seeing our response as a Government, will already have seen that we have moved proactively with the changes that we made on 1 April to cushion the impacts of inflation on households. Not only did it include the family tax credit increase, it’s also included orphan benefit support, increases in main benefit rates, and increases in the minimum wage. So you’ve already seen us be very proactive in this area.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister stand by her Government’s action of requiring household contacts of COVID cases to isolate for seven days, even if they themselves test negative for every one of those days, and does she accept that might have an impact by disrupting supply chains and putting more pressure on the cost of living crisis?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Where there is an impact on critical services, obviously, we’ve had the ability through, for instance, things like the return to work scheme to enable that. But the reason we have the requirement over isolation for household contacts is just the prevalence and the high level of incidents where those contacts do translate into COVID-19 cases. I know the member will wish well all those who may be isolating in those circumstances.

💬 David Seymour: Why wouldn’t New Zealand follow Singapore and have a simple, workable, and sensible isolation policy that after 72 hours if you’ve tested negative you can go back to work?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: For certain industries, we’ve had a policy which has allowed people to return to work with daily rapid antigen tests—so we have had the ability in those critical areas for that to occur. But I’m not sure the member would necessarily promote that we mirror every part of Singapore’s regime. Until recently, of course, they were still limiting gatherings for individuals in private households to 10. Every country has had their own approach; ours has been very heavily based on the evidence. We still know the area of greatest transmission is in households where there are COVID-19 cases—unfortunately.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she believe middle-income households struggling with the cost of living crisis deserve tax relief; if not, why not?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, our focus as a Government has been on using those tools that we have to be targeted, and it’s not just in this particular period of time. When we first came into office, we used a package of support, which ran into the billions, to ensure that New Zealanders were seeing an increase in their incomes—but we target it—as I say: the Best Start payment, the winter energy payment, and those increases to the family tax credit way back in 2017. We’ve also focused on seeing increases in people’s wages. Right up until this year, you consistently saw wage increases that outstripped cost of living increases.

💬 Christopher Luxon: What, in her view, is so wrong with just lifting the tax brackets to adjust for inflation so that middle-income Kiwis get a break from the cost of living crisis?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, of course, it all depends on the circumstances and the situation that you’re in at the time that such a proposal is tabled. I would note that the member’s proposal not only gives tax cuts to those on the highest incomes—and those on the lowest a mere $2 a week—but also has the potential to be inflationary, which is exactly the issue that the member complains about.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Is she ruling out any income tax relief at this Budget?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve already referenced in my answers, I’m not going to speak directly to a Budget that the member only needs to wait a few sleeps for. But we’ve already said, countless times, that our focus is on health services and, for instance, the other challenges facing New Zealand and our economy, including climate change. I note, with the member’s proposal of taking out, for instance, up to a billion dollars from the economy for speculators, that the ability of a National Party in the future to invest in services like health would be seriously constrained.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question?

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, I am going to call Chris Hipkins, but I am going to ask members on both sides to stop the exchange while the Prime Minister is answering questions.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Has she seen any credible commentary suggesting that middle-income earners are those earning over $180,000 a year?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I think you will have seen from many New Zealanders who have heard the proposal of tax cuts for those on over $180,000 a year—and, at the same time, a tax proposal that delivers others on much lower incomes $2 a week—I think they themselves have expressed a view on the likelihood that that is helping those who need it most at this time.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that every dollar this Government chooses to spend is a dollar less for Kiwi families struggling with the highest cost of living increase in a generation?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: You can see in the actions of this Government that we have been consistently focused on spending that lifts the services that New Zealanders value the most: education and health, our COVID response, our investment in income support, and making sure that the wage subsidy existed and kept people in work. When you compare, therefore, the economic outcomes that we’ve had in the wake of COVID19 relative to the global financial crisis (GFC), you see the impact that that targeted spending has had. Our GDP sits at 5.6 percent growth, whereas relative to the GFC, you saw a decline of 1.2 percent. Unemployment at 3.2 percent; post-GFC, it was 6.6 percent. And even the proportion of people on main benefits is lower now than it was post the GFC. We stand by our response in the wake of this economic crisis.

Question No. 2—Finance

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

The Crown accounts released last week continue to reflect the strong position that New Zealand is in to manage the challenging global environment. For the nine months to the end of March, the operating balance before gains and losses deficit was $8.1 billion—$4.1 billion below that forecast in December’s Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update. The investments made by the Government to help keep businesses open and keep Kiwis in work has paid dividends. Projections of 10 percent unemployment and an economy going backwards were avoided because of the actions that we have taken. New Zealand is in a strong fiscal position as we deal with the ongoing economic impacts of the Omicron outbreak and the global inflation pressures.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What did the report say about net debt?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’ve continued to take a careful approach to our spending net core Crown debts to 36.3 percent of GDP—$155 million less than forecast. This is substantially below the countries with which we compare ourselves. Our debt is set to peak at about half of Australia’s, around a third of the UK, and around a fifth of the US measured consistently as a percentage of GDP. Our economy has come through the COVID shock better than almost anywhere else. The recovery has momentum and the easing of restrictions and opening up to skilled workers and tourists will help businesses and the economy rebuild. However, 2022 will continue to be a challenging year for many New Zealanders facing the impact of global inflation and the ongoing impact of the pandemic. Our new fiscal rules will ensure we’re taking a balanced approach: controlling spending but targeting it to those who need it most, keeping a lid on debt and able to make those important investments in infrastructure.

💬 SPEAKER: I am going to allow the member to ask another supplementary but I’m going to advise the Minister of Finance to be briefer in his response.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What other reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, so many but last month credit rating agency Moody’s reaffirmed New Zealand’s local currency and foreign currency rating at triple A with a stable outlook. Moody’s praised New Zealand’s response to the pandemic, calling it effective and proactive. It noted New Zealand’s resilience, supported the country’s medium-term growth potential at a level higher than many advanced triple A countries. Moody’s said New Zealand’s solid fiscal metrics would stand it in good stead to respond to future shocks to growth.

💬 SPEAKER: I think the member had actually answered the question within about five words.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: How much more income tax, if any, has the Government collected in the 2021 financial year compared to 2017, and will he commit to adjusting tax thresholds for inflation in Budget 2022?

The Crown accounts for the June 2021 financial year reflected the strong position New Zealand found itself in due to the Government’s actions to protect lives and livelihoods in an extremely volatile and uncertain pandemic environment. As a result of the stronger economy, which led to higher business profits, more people in work, and higher wages, total income tax revenue, including corporate tax, in the year to June 2021 was $64.7 billion or 18.9 percent of GDP. In comparison, in the June 2017 financial year, total income tax revenue was $49.6 billion or 17.9 percent of GDP. To answer the second part of the question, the member will have to wait just a little longer to find out what decisions have been made in Budget 2022. What I can say is that we won’t be putting in place untargeted tax cuts, such as the member is proposing, that would see her and her leader get thousands of dollars while those on low and middle incomes would get just $2 a week.

💬 Nicola Willis: How many more billions of dollars is the Government collecting in income tax revenue compared to 2017?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I did give those numbers to the member, so $64.7 billion minus $49.6 billion—I’m sure the member can work it out.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does he agree that bracket creep, the increase in tax over time that has resulted from inflation, can be considered, as described by his Tax Working Group, as a non-transparent increase in taxation?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Many Governments over many years have had put to them the importance of addressing bracket creep. Addressing that has to be considered alongside the many, many other things that a Government needs to address, such as the arrival of a global pandemic, for instance, a one-in-one-hundred-year economic shock, or, for instance, dealing with under-investment in a health system after nine years of a National Government.

💬 Nicola Willis: Well, isn’t it the case that he welcomes inflation-fuelled taxation by stealth because it allows him to spend even more of New Zealanders’ hard-earned money?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What this Government has done consistently since we came into office is strike the balance between keeping a lid on debt so that New Zealand’s debt levels are among the lowest in the world while also investing in the public services that were run down under the National Party. It is always a challenging and difficult balance to get that right, and then, in the middle of that, along came COVID. That meant we had to invest significant resources to support New Zealanders and keep them in jobs. When we did that, the National Party supported it. Now, with their 20/20 hindsight, they want to turn that around. It’s just not believable.

💬 Hon David Parker: Can the Minister confirm that the amount of taxation as a percentage of the economy or as a percentage of GDP is just about identical now to that which it was under the National Party in the same period post the global financial crisis?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely, I can confirm that. In fact, I can say, when it comes to personal income tax revenue, it was actually around about the same or slightly higher under National in 2009 and 2010.

💬 Nicola Willis: How can he possibly claim he is striking the right balance when this year alone he has collected $2.7 billion more in tax than forecast, and why, in the middle of a cost of living crisis, does he think it’s acceptable to take more tax from hard-working New Zealanders?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Isn’t this interesting? The true National Party opposing more people being in work, opposing businesses getting higher profits, opposing people going out and consuming more and spending in their communities. We have struck a careful balance because we have kept net debt at levels that are much lower than the countries that we compare ourselves to while making sure that we invest in the core public services we need. The validation for that comes from the rating agencies who have given us triple A ratings: the IMF, the OECD, who have all said that New Zealand deserves to be congratulated for the way it’s come through the pandemic.

Question No. 4—Education

4. to the Minister of Education: Noa‘ia, Mr Speaker. What action is the Government taking to give continued support to businesses in meeting their skill needs?

Yesterday I announced, as part of Budget 2022, that we’ll be providing for another 24,000 apprentices, getting the Apprenticeship Boost support, and some 14,000 apprentices will continue to get supported beyond August this year. In recognition of the significant growth in apprentices since 2020—and the employment strength of the New Zealand economy—and to extend the initiative at a reasonable cost, the first year subsidy rate will lower to $500 per month from 5 August 2022. The second year subsidy rate will remain at $500 per month, until the initiative ends in December 2023. There are already 17,000 employers involved in the programme, and today’s investment means that new employers can also join up.

💬 Marja Lubeck: Why did the Government consider it important to make this investment at this time?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: New Zealand’s economy is one of the strongest in the world, with record low unemployment of 3.2 percent, and economic activity up on what is was pre-COVID-19—and I know they hate that, over there. That’s in large part due to the investments that this Government has made, including in training and supporting New Zealanders into work. A key message that we hear from business is that they need more skilled workers, and we’ve continued to invest in the training of New Zealanders, who are building our houses and upgrading our infrastructure, because we know how vital they are to the success of our recovery. Over the last two years, over 190,000 people have benefited from Government investment in trades training, including in apprenticeships.

💬 Marja Lubeck: What response has he seen to this investment?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: More good news. Business New Zealand has said that the Apprenticeship Boost had, and I quote, “turbo charged” an uptake in the number of people entering trades at the time of skill shortages, adding on to that: “The scheme has worked. We’ve seen tens of thousands of people entering apprenticeships, up 55 percent … [on] the levels [that we] were up to previously.” Another very positive comment from the Motor Trade Association, who called it “brilliant news for the automotive industry”, and the Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation said that the Apprenticeship Boost was “essential for the training of the skilled pipeline of workers needed in the building and construction industry.”

Question No. 5—Housing

5. to the Minister of Housing: Does she stand by her statement that extending income-related rent subsidies to council housing tenants will “come at the expense of the Government building new houses for people on the public housing waiting list”, or do the recently announced fiscal rules mean that this Government could increase debt to pay for building new housing while also extending rent subsidies?

To the first part of the question: yes. To the second part of the question: the Government’s new fiscal rules apply to fiscal policy as a whole; they don’t specify particular spending outcomes on a portfolio basis. The debt rules are a ceiling, not a target. There are two significant financial constraints in increasing the number of public houses. One is the capital expenditure required to build the homes. The second is the continued annual and ongoing commitment to provide the operational expenditure for the income-related rent subsidy (IRRS). On the first—the capital constraints—Kāinga Ora leverages its own balance sheet to borrow to build houses. Kāinga Ora is able to issue its own debt up to a Government-set limit of $8.3 billion in the private market. It also has nearly $2 billion in loans from the Crown. The debt is not solely for additional housing delivery, as it also funds a number of other activities undertaken by Kāinga Ora, including redevelopment, land acquisition, and infrastructure.

However, the IRRS expenditure, or the income-related rent expenditure the member refers to, is operating expenses, not debt funding, and it needs to come within the operating allowances of the annual budget. Since we have come into Government, I’m pleased to report we have increased the expenditure on IRRS from the $890 million the previous Government annually paid in 2017-18, to $1.318 billion forecast for this financial year. This represents a 48 percent increase in IRRS. If we were to apply the IRRS to council houses that have already been built, we would be applying this to existing housing rather than continuing our record house-building programme. If we are to solve the housing crisis, we simply have to build more homes, and we are unashamedly pulling every lever to increase housing supply.

💬 Simeon Brown: It’s a speech.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Look—

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: It wasn’t!

💬 SPEAKER: The member does have a question later, and he’s a bit lucky he’s going to be here for it. Can I just say that the length of answers is something for my judgment, and reflecting on my judgment is something which is not appropriate. I was warned that that was to be a longer answer. I will say to the Minister that there was probably a bit more in it than was absolutely necessary.

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I like to be helpful.

💬 SPEAKER: The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I withdraw and apologise.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she believe that capping rents at 25 percent of weekly incomes helps prevent homelessness by ensuring social housing tenants can afford a decent standard of living, stay in their homes, and put down roots in their community, and, if so, does she believe it is important to enable this for local government housing tenants as well?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Of course, the Government’s public housing provider, Kāinga Ora, does have an income-related rent subsidy. It caps at 25 percent, and this is afforded to a number of community housing providers (CHPs) that qualify for IRRS funding. When it comes to councils, I think it’s worth remembering that it is only since 2015-16, when the National Government readied the public housing network for sell-off, that councils became eligible to receive IRRS funding. Previously, they did that by setting their own affordable housing rents and utilised the accommodation supplement. I would point the member to the fact that PricewaterhouseCoopers actually did a review of the proportion of income that council tenants around the country were paying. Some were, in fact, paying less than 25 percent; some were paying substantially more. It’s really down to individual councils for them to take responsibility around the provision of affordable housing for their communities.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree with her former colleague Annette King’s wish for councils to have had access to income-related rent subsidies during the previous National Government and with the current Labour Party Wellington City councillor Rebecca Matthews, who is calling on this Government to “help us out here with income related rent subsidies.”?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We have been working with the Wellington City Council for around a year now. It is a complicated issue. There is the matter of the $220 million loan that was given to the Wellington City Council that needs to be delivered on its obligations under that loan by I think it’s 2036—so we’re working around progress around the terms of that loan—and also the level at which Wellington City makes its own contribution and what the city is contributing. I compare this to some other councils around the country who are setting much lower and much more affordable rents for their citizens.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What recent advice, if any, has she received on the potential capacity for local councils, community providers, and iwi to build new, affordable rental housing if the Government underwrote the financing or provided capital grants and provided rent subsidies on an ongoing basis?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think if the member were to look closely at what our Government is doing in the area of the provision of community housing, he would see that we are doing just what he talks about. If we look here in this city, at Arlington, this is of course a long-term contract with Wellington City Council, and we are doing this around the country with upfront funding which the CHPs” are able to capitalise or councils are able to capitalise in order to build housing. If he has a look at the number of houses being provided by CHPs under the settings our Government is providing, he will see that it is vastly increased than it was under the previous Government. And one of the reasons for that is because in order to provide public housing, you’ve got to have an annual and ongoing commitment to the income-related rent subsidy. It’s not just the capital funding, it’s also the operating funding.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How would she respond to Wellington resident Debbie Port, who pays 59 percent of her income in rent on a Wellington council flat and said at the income-related rent subsidy petition handover, “How am I meant to pay for food? How am I meant to pay for power? How am I meant to do everything I need to do for my health, if it all goes on rent?”

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Of course, for anybody who is struggling with their household expenses, I would say to them that I understand that things are tough. But I would also say to that resident that she should also talk to her city council. The Wellington City Council sets its rents for its tenants. Other councils around the country set them at lower limits. If we are going to solve a housing crisis, we need all of our community working together. Central government has a critical part to play and we are partnering with CHPs, we are partnering with iwi, and we are partnering with councils, but we also need those who have traditionally provided affordable houses in the community to continue to do so.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What role does she believe local government should have in providing social housing and helping reduce the public housing waiting list, and does she believe current financing arrangements for local government enable them to meet their aspirations as social housing providers?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In answer to the first part of the question, I think that local government has an absolutely critical part to play in solving this housing crisis, that local government since the 1930s has been at the forefront of the provision of affordable housing for their communities, and that is a long and historic tradition that we want to see continue. I think the member should note it is only since 2015 and 2016—under the corporatisation that the National Government put in place to ready houses for sell off that required the transfer to community housing provider models—that what he is calling for came to exist. I want to see us have far more sustainable, less corporatised models of housing that put people first.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

6. to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by the statement she made in her pre-Budget speech last year, “We need to be aspirational, and have a plan”?

Yes, I stand by my full statement, which I will shorten for the benefit of the House and this remote viewing but which included, “We need to be aspirational and have a plan, but we also need to be disciplined and prioritise.”

💬 David Seymour: Why has productivity grown by just 2.6 percent since 2017 while some former Soviet socialist republics have overtaken us, and was her aspiration and plan always to be more like them?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member casts aspersions on this entire House with that statement, given productivity has been an issue that successive Governments have worked to tackle. The member will have seen that over time, of course, we’ve seen improvements—over a number of years, gradual as they may be. But, again, the very issues that we need to address if we’re to improve our productivity as a nation include, for instance, investing in skills and training. I note the member wishes to get rid of the first year free of post-secondary education. We’d also include investment in research and development. I note the member would like to get rid of the R & D tax credit and Callaghan Innovation. It seems we have very different views on what will improve our productivity.

💬 David Seymour: What sort of aspersions would she cast on the Australian Parliament since the median Australian workers’ hourly rate has grown by $3.20 an hour or $6,600 a year more than the average Kiwi worker since she’s been in Government?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: And, again, an issue that successive Governments have seen, and one in which we’ve been very clear that part of driving productivity includes driving innovation within industry. Higher wages prompt that investment in innovation. It’s one of the reasons that we have promoted the fair pay agreements as a way of, instead of driving towards low wages and poor terms and conditions for workers, encouraging investment that enables greater productivity. I note, again, for the member that fair pay agreements are something that Australia have indeed adopted and implemented.

💬 David Seymour: When the Prime Minister just tried to argue that unionisation is one of those things that will help raise wages in New Zealand, was she aware that only 14 percent of Australians choose to join unions compared with 18 percent in New Zealand?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I was arguing was that decent wages help drive productivity and that in New Zealand you need to have a role to play in driving decent wages. Regardless of the member’s view in that regard, it should not stop him from recognising the role of, for instance, fair pay agreements, which can assist in driving fair terms and conditions for workers. And, again, I reflect the fact that they are used in Australia.

💬 Hon Michael Wood: Can the Prime Minister confirm that since 1991, when New Zealand removed sector-based bargaining from its industrial relations framework, Australia’s rate of labour productivity has been 46 percent higher, on average, per year than New Zealand’s?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, and, again, I reflect that the tools that Australia has used to ensure that we don’t have a race to the bottom when it comes to wages are, for instance, fair pay agreements.

💬 David Seymour: Does she believe it’s sustainable to keep our superannuation entitlement age at 65 when Australia, America, Britain, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, to name a few, are raising their ages of entitlement; and, if so, how does she explain that to young taxpayers thinking of leaving New Zealand for more welcoming economic climes?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My message would be that if you wish to retire at an older age than your parents, then the fastest track towards that is to have a party in Government, via the ACT and National parties, who refuse to invest in the Superannuation Fund. We’ve made a commitment to that Superannuation Fund, and I see that ACT, again, has announced that they wish to cut their contribution. It’s those kinds of policies which mean that we will not have consistency in our retirement policy.

💬 David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister explain to those young people how investing in the New Zealand Superannuation Fund while also borrowing money to run Government each year, is sensible economics; and would she advise young people to invest in Sharesies using their credit card, because that’s what she just advocated?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member’s going to rephrase the question—especially the last part of it.

💬 David Seymour: I’ll try my best, Mr Speaker. Does the Prime Minister believe that it is helpful to borrow money on the global debt markets and put that same money into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, which is what she is currently doing by investing, as she calls it, in the Superannuation Fund, and, if that is good economic sense, would she advise the same young people to borrow money on their credit card to invest in Sharesies?

💬 SPEAKER: The Prime Minister can answer the first part of the question, for which she has responsibility.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would actually refer the member to the Minister of Finance’s recent reflections around our fiscal strategy, which demonstrate our focus on ensuring that when we are making future investments that require or draw down debt that it is focused, for instance, on those long-term challenges that we have and, for instance, infrastructure as part of that, and ensuring, of course, that our ongoing revenue as a country day to day fuels the spending decisions we make day to day. That is why we have also, alongside our debt ceilings, promoted that we would be working towards surpluses over a period of time of between zero and 2 percent of GDP.

💬 David Seymour: Are our productivity and wages low because, according to the OECD, it’s easier for foreigners to invest in China, Saudi Arabia, and Myanmar than New Zealand, leaving Kiwi workers with less capital and technology to work with?

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: Oh, God, what a Neanderthal!

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I can speak to is—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! No, no, sorry. I apologise to the Prime Minister. The member who made that comment will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: Prime Minister, start again.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I can reference is the frequent reference by the OECD and the IMF towards the under-investment historically that New Zealand has had in skills and training that would cover off the skills gap that we have in New Zealand. That has been one of the contributing factors. I note that this is an area where the member is proposing that instead of investing, we see cuts. As a Government, we’ve been proud of the investment that we’ve made in this area. We’ve made apprenticeships free; we’ve got, of course, the Apprenticeship Boost, which has supported employers to continue to keep apprentices on, and we’ve extended that as of yesterday; and the first year of fees-free, we know, has also encouraged a number of young people to continue with their training and education. These are all areas where it’s been noted by other financial institutions that it will make a significant difference to our productivity if we continue that investment.

Question No. 7—Social Development and Employment

7. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent announcements has she made about supporting people into employment, education, or training?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Happy New Zealand Sign Language Week, Youth Week, Rotuman Language Week, and New Zealand Music Month. Yesterday, Minister Hipkins and I announced the extension to Apprenticeship Boost, Mana in Mahi, and the Māori Trades and Training Fund. Apprenticeship Boost has supported around 45,000 new apprentices and begun building the workforce we need to futureproof our economy. Yesterday the Government announced $230 million in Budget 2022 for additional investment to support another 24,000 apprentices and to continue to support 14,000 more beyond August of this year. There are already 17,000 employers involved in the programme and this investment will provide certainty to them and ensure new employers can sign up. This investment goes a long way to bridging the skills gap and providing work-ready employees for New Zealand businesses.

💬 Arena Williams: Why is the Government extending Māori trades and training?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Māori trades and training is showing incredible promise as a programme. Last financial years it was over-subscribed with high demand for Māori entities willing to deliver employment-focused training programmes in their communities. The by Māori, for Māori approach aligns with the all-of-Government employment strategy and Māori Employment Action Plan, which seeks an improved Māori-Crown partnership to deliver more equitable labour market outcomes for Māori. The contracted programmes that have been launched have 254 participants, with 177 in employment so far. The programmes have a retention rate of 95 percent. A total of 813 participants are expected to be supported through training with a Te Ao Māori focus and into sustainable employment under existing partnerships, with more already being developed.

💬 Arena Williams: Why is the Government extending Mana in Mahi?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Mana in Mahi is performing above expectations. By the end of the programme, participants have had significant investment into their above expectations. By the end of the programme, participants have had significant investment into their skills and experience and are more likely to continue in employment. Currently, 89 percent of the 4,719 participants have found work, are still active on the programme, or have exited their placement early and are not on benefit. More than half of the current participants are working towards a level 4 qualification or above. Mana in Mahi is a fantastic programme that provides significant incentives to employers and participants when they need it most.

Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment

8. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Is she confident the Government’s employment initiatives represent good value for money; if so, why?

Based on the fact that this Government has got more people off benefit and into work in the last year than any other Government, I’d say our suite of employment initiatives is doing OK. For the first time, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) now report on the effectiveness of their programmes annually, and publish those results online via a new digital tracking tool. It’s a very transparent process and one I endorse. There will always be programmes that perform better than others, and MSD are constantly looking to evolve and do things better. Our pilot programmes are similar, some work well and others don’t hit the mark. The previous Government’s social bonds initiative—which cost $984,000 and met 12.6 percent of its target—is a good example of that.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: How many of the 176,000 people on the jobseeker benefit secured a job from the online job expos that cost taxpayers $6,626 for every one of the 126 attendees?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Firstly, let me just clarify that of the 170-something-thousand job seekers a number of them are on jobseekers health condition and disability and so therefore are not necessarily work-ready. As I have said to the media with regards to the online tool, it was something that MSD trialled and it provides us with some learnings, with some infrastructure for our digital developments moving forward. However, it didn’t provide a large number of jobs, not like a number of our other programmes. A very similar number, I think, participated in the online Zoom programme—around about 120, which was about the same number that was successful through the National Government’s social bonds investment: 124 versus the 900-and-something, or a thousand, it was funded for.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Why, almost two years since the Māori Trades and Training Fund was allocated $50 million, has it supported just 44 people into jobs—which is more than a million dollars per job?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I would question the numbers of that member. Also, I would say a couple of things. A lot of the investment has been spent with regards to supporting provider capability. This side of the House is very supportive of supporting for Māori, by Māori. And that’s certainly a major element of our Māori trades training focus. Also, as another side impact to Māori trades training, we have had a pandemic to contend with—that does not mean that the programme is not successful and that we will not continue to invest in it.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Why is the $311 million Flexi-wage extension not on track to deliver the 40,000 jobs when firms are crying out for staff and 176,000 New Zealanders are on the jobseeker benefit?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Just clarifying again to that member that a large number of the 176,000 New Zealanders on jobseeker benefit actually are on the health and conditions and disability jobseeker support benefit—really important to clarify that. At the time that we made the announcement around the 40,000 places for Flexi-wage, Treasury were anticipating that we would reach the peaks of around 480,000 people on benefit. We haven’t got anywhere near that, but the programme was certainly designed with that in mind. In saying that, we’re just over a year into the programme and I think we’ve seen about 15,000 people go through Flexi-wage. The success rate is still immensely effective and the results are good. And, just like any other programme, we expect it to ramp up and we look forward to that.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: How much does the Minister think the Government’s employment initiatives have contributed to the fact that there are 291,000 more New Zealanders in work than there were in 2017, and that we have an unemployment rate of 3.2 percent?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The way in which this Government has responded with respect to investing heavily into employment programmes, into front-line, work-focused case management, and to investing in things like the wage subsidy to secure jobs so that people didn’t find themselves unemployed, has meant that we have beaten the odds and not reached the depths that had been forecast initially. I think that it is something we can be quite proud of—that we are in a position where as a country we have a 3.2 percent unemployment rate. We continue to remain focused, and as our announcement yesterday with regards to investment and employment programmes showed, this is very much a priority for our Government.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Why, despite over a billion dollars being spent on employment initiatives, have long-term jobseeker benefit recipients increased by 60 percent under Labour?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: When you see the numbers of people go up, with regards to benefit numbers in general, then you will see that in every category with regards to time frames. I am still heartened by the fact that we are seeing more exits off benefit into employment than what we have seen since electronic records were kept. If I just reflect on the last week, another 1,000—or actually 999 to be exact—New Zealanders have moved off benefit. That speaks to this Government’s track record.

Question No. 9—Police

9. to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has she made regarding the number of police officers on the front line?

On Sunday, I was at Counties Manukau Police Station with my justice sector colleagues to announce $562 million in funding over four years into Police so they continue to have the resource they need to keep our communities safe. This is in addition to our already record investment in Police since 2017. Budget 2022 also sets out $50 million from next year to ensure that we continue to grow the number of police officers in line with population growth. This will mean that there will be one police officer for every 480 people, and delivers on a key manifesto commitment.

💬 Ginny Andersen: How many police recruits have graduated since this Government came into office?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Last week I attended my 13th police graduation as Minister of Police, which saw 71 recruits graduate and deploy to the front line. This brings the total number of police graduates since 2017 to 3,145. The additional police investments we are delivering through Budget 2022 means that police numbers will not drop as our population increases, as they did in 2011 and 2013.

💬 Ginny Andersen: What does having more police officers on the front line mean for keeping our communities safe?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: This Government has been clear: more police means safer communities. That is why we have seen over 3,000 recruits through Police College since we came to office, with 1,400 additional police officers on the front line. As one commentator put it, “Don’t underestimate the strength of that thin blue line when it is properly supported and empowered to do their job.”

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Why isn’t it working?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: That’s why Budget 2022 makes further record investments into Police, and I welcome Mr Mitchell’s support for that additional funding.

💬 Chris Baillie: Can the Minister confirm that the net increase in police numbers in the last month was four?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: What I can say is we are well on track to increase—no, I cannot confirm that. I don’t know where that member gets his numbers from, but what I can confirm is 1,800 extra police by the end of the year, six months ahead of budget.

Question No. 10—Justice

10. to the Minister of Justice: Is he confident the Government’s justice policies are effective in keeping New Zealanders safe from crime?

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Glad you woke up.

Noa‘ia, Mr Speaker—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’ve been awake the whole time. Thank you.

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Noa‘ia, Mr Speaker. Yes, we are using all of the justice system to respond to crime through improvements to prevention, investigations, processing, and rehabilitation. This was reflected at Sunday’s announcement of a major package of law and order measures that further increases police numbers, cracks down on gangs, and extends successful rehabilitation programmes to break the cycle of offending and entering a life of crime. This builds on the progress of previous years where the total crime rate has remained relatively static between 2014 and 2021 as have burglaries and aggravated robberies. Youth crime has decreased by approximately 14 percent between the same period and people who commit violent crime are still being sent to prison.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: In light of his comment on the weekend, “In recent years we have seen increases in gun crime, gang activity and even more recently some forms of youth offending that puts both our communities and our police at risk.”, what responsibility does he take for this as a result after 4½ years of Labour’s justice policies?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I take great responsibility in announcing in the same way at the weekend the continued record investment in police, continued support for our communities. We’re trying to deal with organised crime through programmes like the Resilience to Organised Crime in Communities, making sure that we resource and work with communities to deal with organised crime.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will Sunday’s Budget announcement lead to more action than the 2020 Budget announcement of $20 million to aid the prosecution of strangulation cases and to help victims, which two years later has barely produced anything?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: What I will take responsibility in terms of this Budget is, as the police Minister has already outlined, we’ll continue to resource the front line, as opposed to the previous Government which saw police numbers drop by 300 between 2013 and 2014.

Golriz Ghahraman (remote): Does he agree with former finance Minister Sir Bill English that justice policies which aim to lock up more people in prisons for longer are a “fiscal and moral failure”; if so, what evidence-based justice policies is he implementing to tackle the causes of it ending in our communities?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: While, thankfully, I’m not responsible for Mr English’s comments we do agree, as Minister Davis mentioned on Sunday, that prisons are an indication of fiscal and moral failure. The current Government has managed to reduce the prison population quite significantly over the last 4½ years, which means we are doing much better fiscally than the previous Government and much better morally than the previous Government. We are working with the likes of the Green Party Ministers to address the issues such as family and sexual violence, which we are proud to make sure that we are committed to during this Budget as well. And I’d like to again point out the work that we’re doing through a number of agencies around resilience to organised crime in our communities; making sure again we resource communities, aid agencies, and give local leadership to make sure that we’re dealing with organised crime.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he understand the frustration of retailers like dairy owner Mr Vatsa, whose dairy suffered $20,000 worth of damages in a ram raid and said, “There should be stricter penalties for these kids. They should be held accountable for their actions. They know nothing will happen.”?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: We obviously sympathise with the challenges that some of those businesses are going through at the moment and, as a number of Ministers have said, the justice agencies and Ministers are working on measures to be able to make sure that we can help protect those businesses. What I would say is that the sentencing measures available to police there—the maximum penalty of 10 years—but first to make sure that you sentence you actually have to find the people responsible and again we’ve invested in making sure we have more police on the beat to make sure we can investigate and make sure we bring people to justice.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why is his Government contemplating spending money to subsidise bollards in front of shops rather than dealing with the real problem, which is that repeat youth offenders face little or no consequences for their actions?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The member isn’t blind to the work that the Government is doing to make sure that we do reduce youth crime. It has been decreasing, as I said, over years, and, at the moment, we are experiencing a spike in that kind of activity, and we are responding to the needs of those people who are being affected by those crimes.

💬 Hon David Parker: Is the Minister aware of any reports that suggest that the last question is wrong, and that most of these ram raids are not repeat offenders, and it’s the first time they’ve come in contact with the police?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Yes. Obviously, there has been some commentary in the media recently about the types of youth who are responsible for the crime. There are some issues which cause them to offend: the likes of economic conditions at home, housing—all issues that the current Government is addressing.

Question No. 11—Biosecurity

11. to the Minister for Biosecurity: What recent announcements has he made on eradicating Mycoplasma bovis?

Last Thursday, I was pleased to join the Prime Minister, Dairy New Zealand, Beef + Lamb, and the Ministry for Primary Industries at the national bulk-milk testing lab, MilkTestNZ, to announce that we are just one infected property away from becoming the first country in the world to successfully eradicate Mycoplasma bovis. [Applause] Thank you. This is a significant achievement that we have achieved in partnership with the primary sector and once again shows that this Government is committed to supporting our primary sector and rural communities. We have cleared 271 farms of Mycoplasma bovis, and plans are under way to clear that remaining infected property. I want to thank industry and New Zealand’s rural communities for partnering with this Government to take on this challenge.

💬 Jo Luxton: How will the Government manage the M. bovis eradication programme, going forward?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The Government is working with industry partners on the transition of the Mycoplasma bovis eradication programme to an agency under a national pest-management plan for implementation within the next year. This will see us move from delimiting to provisional absence of the disease, including significant surveillance testing of herds around the country to provide assurance that there are no undetected pockets of the disease. The world-class bulk-milk testing and beef herd surveillance developed over the past four years will continue to be crucial tools.

💬 Jo Luxton: How will the Government continue to support industry to prevent similar incursions?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The Government is strengthening New Zealand’s biosecurity system as part of Budget 2022 to help protect our vital primary sector and native flora and fauna from disease incursions and to manage incursions when they do occur. Last Thursday, I was pleased to announce that Budget 2022 will deliver funding of $42.9 million to bolster the biosecurity system and $68 million over the next year for Mycoplasma bovis eradication.

Question No. 12—Police

12. to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement, “There is no doubt that violence and gang tensions are a feature of our community”, and why has gang membership increased by 40 percent since 2017?

In answer to the member’s first question, I stand by the full context of my statement, which was that gang tensions have been a feature of New Zealand society for well over a century. In answer to the second part of the member’s question, the member is referring to the National Gang List, which is an internal police intelligence tool. As police have publicly said, it remains an unreliable measure of gang membership. The way to deal with gang tensions and gang membership is by giving police the tools and resources they need, and that is why Budget 2022 includes $562 million for police over four years, of which $94 million will go towards tackling gangs and organised crime.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Have gang tensions increased under her watch?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: In 2017, there were 2,138 violent offences committed by gang members. In 2021, there were 1,704. And I agree with the member that you need more police to get the job done, and that’s why Budget 2022 sets aside funding to ensure police numbers continue to align with population growth, which means they won’t fall as they did in 2011 and 2013.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: So is the Minister telling this House that gang tensions have decreased under this Government?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The work that we have done has seen the charging rates against gang members increase 92 percent under our watch. We have provided police with the resources that they need to undertake major operations against serious crime.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Is this investment in targeting the gangs an admission that the Government’s soft-on-crime approach has failed?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member can rephrase his question. He’s lucky.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Is this investment in targeting the gangs a result of this Government’s soft-on-crime approach that may have failed?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Mr Speaker—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume her seat. The member can ask another supplementary now if he wants.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: What is the Minister most worried about in relation to gangs?

💬 Hon Kelvin Davis: A National Government.

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Yeah. What most troubles me is that if the National Government ever gets their hands on the Treasury benches again—$562 million is a record investment into police. And what this proves is we back our police—we back them to do their jobs—and we will stand by them every step of the way.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: The member’s used all his supplementaries.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very straight question and all I got was a political answer.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think it’s fair to say that the member has dished up quite a series of very political questions, and having a response which is similar to the approach that he’s taken is something that he should expect, given both his prior experience and his parliamentary experience.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Sorry, just a point of order on your guidance, Mr Speaker. Sorry, could you point me to exactly where I’m being political in my questions to the Minister?

💬 SPEAKER: I think it’s fair to say that taken as a general group, the member has been very political. That’s not a criticism, but it’s just a fact of life that when one takes that approach, the Speaker is more lenient with allowing Ministers to respond. And, similarly, where Ministers are more political in their responses, at that point I have much more flexibility for members asking the questions to be political as well.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Sorry, Mr Speaker, point of order. Sorry to re-litigate it, but I have asked specifically for you to point out to me—

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, and if the member wants to come and have a cup of coffee with me, I’ll work it through with him, but it’s not my job to run tutorials for him in the House, especially a member of his experience.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order. Yeah, Mr Speaker, I think the problem here is that while you might correctly point out that there is a degree of flexibility about how the two Standing Orders for both questions and answers are interpreted by whoever is sitting in the Chair, the answer that was given to that last question was largely in response to an interjection that was made that was rare, hardly reasonable but certainly a little bit humorous. But for the answer from a Minister to be, “Well, my biggest fear in the portfolio is the Government changes.”—that could be an answer to every question that ever gets asked in here. It most certainly would not be in the public interest, despite what the Minister giving the answer might believe.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to that point of order, if the Opposition don’t want to know what the Minister’s worried about they perhaps shouldn’t ask a question along the lines of “What’s the Minister worried about?”

💬 SPEAKER: No, well, is this going to really add any more value to it?

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: I think it will, Mr Speaker. Point of order?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I reckon it’s a long shot, but have a go.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: My question was very specific and very direct in relation to a major concern in this country at the moment and that’s around the behaviour of gangs and the proliferation of the numbers. That was a very direct question to the Minister responsible. It was completely political; she talked about the National Party. She didn’t address the question at all.

💬 SPEAKER: The member asked a question which couldn’t actually be much broader within a specific area, and it does open it up to the Minister to respond as she wishes or as she is prompted. And when that occurs, the member can’t complain. If he wants narrow answers, he should ask narrow questions.

Point of order. Just to expand and elucidate, I asked a question earlier about the connection between the OECD’s advice on foreign investment and productivity growth. The Prime Minister never addressed that relationship, but instead answered the question by talking about other issues, specifically domestic investment and human capital and their relationship to productivity growth. Now, it seems to me that if we’re going to require the answers are as specific as the questions, she should have been required to answer that, but she wasn’t.

💬 SPEAKER: OK, the member will resume his seat. He’s six questions too late.

Point of Order—Question No. 9

Point of order? A separate point of order, Mr Speaker. This afternoon I was asked by Chris Baillie the number of police that were recruited—

💬 David Seymour: Uh, oh!

—in the last four weeks—

💬 SPEAKER: Which member made that interjection?

💬 David Seymour: That was me, sir.

💬 SPEAKER: Withdraw and apologise. I mean, I’ve spent quite a lot of work trying to get Ministers to correct answers promptly. We’re getting a Minister doing it and we have someone interjecting in a way which is not allowed. Withdraw and apologise.

💬 David Seymour: I withdraw and apologise.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Baillie asked a question about the number of police that have been recruited in the last four weeks. The number he said was four. The number I have from Police is 27.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! No, no. I’m not going to allow the member to come in now. The member cannot correct someone else’s answers or questions by way of point of order. The member can, if she has the facts, use them in a supplementary question, or there’s a number of different approaches that can be taken. That was disorderly. The Minister will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise.

Request for Speaker’s Ruling—Supplementary Questions, Prefatory Comments

I have a point of order from the Hon Michael Woodhouse participating remotely.

Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. When you review question time, you’ll notice that three supplementary questions in question three, six, and 10 all commenced with prefacing comments “Can the Minister confirm” or “Is the Minister aware”, followed by what Speaker’s ruling 183/7(1) would describe as a question “generally not seeking elucidation but seeking to inject information or propaganda a member wishes to be heard”—and therefore is not permitted. The fact that there were three of them today suggested there may have been a change in that ruling, and I wonder if you’d consider and advise the House in the future whether that’s the case?

I will certainly consider it. But I’m just checking with the member. It was three, six, and—

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: And 10.

—and 10. OK, I will have a look at the questions generally, and I will look very specifically at the questions that those members ask in the future. Thank you, Mr Woodhouse, for your advice.