Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Health: [Signs “Thank you, Mr Speaker” in New Zealand Sign Language] Is the Government working to embed community voices within the reformed health system; if so, how?

Community voices will be heard in our health system through locality planning networks. This will be how communities, including iwi, work with health providers to have a say on what health services are provided for them and how they will be provided. A locality will be an area defined by geography and population and will offer a coherent basis to organise health services for the people who live and work there. Locality networks will be part of a collective of networks across the country that inform Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority on commissioning of health services, contributing to local plans that deliver for unique community needs and priorities within the national New Zealand health plan. The locality planning process will allow much greater coordination and collaboration between health service providers and communities to ensure the right mix of services are available on a basis suitable to the community.

💬 Sarah Pallett: How will localities be determined?

💬 SARAH PALLETT: There will be a range of criteria to help in determining how a locality is confirmed, including priority population groups, iwi boundaries, and local government boundaries. Once Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority have worked with communities to identify their localities, a locality commissioner or coordinator will be assigned to work with the community and providers to meet and talk about their priorities for local care. This targeted engagement will inform a locality plan that will be the basis on which local healthcare services are funded, and I expect all areas to be covered by July 2024.

💬 Sarah Pallett: How will localities be set up?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We’ve established the first nine areas for locality prototypes. These are Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Hauraki, Taupō, Tūrangi, Wairoa, Whanganui, Porirua, West Coast, Eastern Bay of Plenty, and Horowhenua. The selection of these prototype localities had a strong emphasis on areas with rural, Māori, and Pacific populations. These are groups for whom services at present struggle to deliver on an equitable basis and they are a place to start as we continue to build back our health system better. More locality areas will be added over the next two years and, as I said in answer to the previous question, all of New Zealand will be covered by a locality by July 2024.

💬 Nicola Grigg: What is his response to the chief executive of the New Zealand Rural General Practice Network, Dr Grant Davidson, who said, “We thought the situation was now so bad that the health of rural New Zealanders could no longer be ignored. We were obviously wrong!”?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I would say that Mr Davidson, in making those remarks—because the member hasn’t put a time on them—was talking about some time ago, probably more than five years ago.

💬 Nicola Grigg: Why won’t he include rural communities as a priority population in the reformed health system?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, the responses to the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill resulted in submissions calling for roughly 20 different distinct plans. There will be one New Zealand health plan and a number of other strategies that will flow from that. But in the end, the most important thing at the moment is that rural communities who are completely shut out of any real voice in our health system will now have that voice in a much stronger way through locality planning networks. And that’s why the first nine locality prototypes we’ve set up have a very strong emphasis on rural communities.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement, “The short term challenge of inflation is significant”; if so, when does he expect inflation to return to the Reserve Bank’s 1-3 percent target range?

I stand by my statement in the context it was made in a speech for the Wellington Chamber of Commerce this morning. As I went on to say, global supply chain disruptions, ongoing localised lockdowns in China, and Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine have pushed inflation rates to higher levels. On the second part of the question, my expectation is that the Reserve Bank will fulfil the obligation under the monetary policy remit that I agreed with them to keep future annual inflation between 1 and 3 percent over the medium term. I note that the Reserve Bank has forecast inflation to come back down over 2022 and back inside that target band in 2023.

💬 Nicola Willis: How can New Zealanders have confidence in his assurance that inflation is only a short-term challenge, when the Reserve Bank as recently as May last year predicted an inflation peak of 2.6 percent, which is less than half of the inflation levels New Zealand is currently experiencing?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can’t speak for the Reserve Bank and the reason for their projections and forecasts—I’ve given them to the member today; she’s read out some other ones. Those are matters for the Reserve Bank to defend.

💬 Nicola Willis: Is he aware that the Reserve Bank’s latest forecast show that non-tradeable or domestic inflation will still be outside the target range in 2025, and, if so, why is he claiming inflation is a short-term challenge?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The balance between tradeables and non-tradeables will continue, I’m sure, to see a significant impact from what happens offshore in what we call non-tradeables as well. So, for example, we’ve had the issue around building supplies, which have a massive influence on what is a non-tradeable factor in inflation. With respect to where inflation goes from here, there are varying views from economists around the country and around the world. What we know is that inflation is at an elevated level, it is putting pressure on households, and we certainly understand that.

💬 Nicola Willis: Can he confirm his statement this morning on the impact of Government spending on inflation that, “We do need to be careful what we spend”, and, if so, why does he think now, with the highest inflation in 31 years, is the right time to be committing to the largest Budget operating allowance in history?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we’ve covered a number of times in this House, the operating allowance contains a one-off component to begin the major, needed reform of our health sector. Operating allowances will continue to trend down from there. As a percentage of GDP—i.e., being able to comparably look at the way in which our spending works—our spending is very similar to what the previous National Government did straight after the global financial crisis (GFC), and it is forecast to come down as well. It’s important to get a balance right in the Budget, and I note the member’s earlier statement that she made that the National Party would, effectively, be spending the same amount as the Labour Government is proposing to.

💬 Nicola Willis: Well, can he confirm his view that, “The economy is experiencing significant capacity constraints”, and, if so, why is he planning to spend so much in the upcoming Budget that he’s had to delay the return to surplus by another year?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The return to surplus, I note, as I have in the House earlier this week, is quicker than the return to surplus that the National Government did after the GFC. The thing that the member needs to understand here is that the Government has to balance a set of priorities. We have to invest in our health system. We have to invest in our education system. We are doing that in a way that means that we have debt that is far lower than most of the countries that we compare ourselves to, and that we are returning to surplus quicker than the previous National Government did—that is the kind of balance that we need in a Budget.

💬 Nicola Willis: Well, is he concerned that according to BNZ “Our central forecast currently is that New Zealand’s growth stalls completely in 2023”, and doesn’t that show the Government urgently needs a better economic plan than spending more and taxing New Zealanders more to pay for it?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: An economic plan that the member would propose, with untargeted tax cuts, would actually have all of the impacts that she’s talking about, and, in fact, would see us in deficit for longer than is currently proposed. With respect to the views of the BNZ, there are a variety of opinions out there among our different bank economists and forecasters—for example, the ASB say that New Zealand’s economy is in a strong position and has sound foundations, showing remarkable resilience and adaptability.

💬 Nicola Willis: Well, does the Minister understand that inflation-adjusting tax thresholds would make the average income household $1,600 a year better off, and why does he continue to ignore the squeezed middle?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The problem for the member is she’s ignoring the other part of her tax policy, where those earning more than $180,000 will get thousands of dollars more while those on the minimum wage get their two bucks a week. It is all about making sure, in a Budget, that you get priorities right and you get a balance. Our view, and the view of the IMF, is now is not the time for major tax reform; now is the time to make sure we support low and middle income New Zealanders through this inflation spike and get on with investing in things like the health system and making sure we respond properly to climate change.

Question No. 3—Tourism

3. to the Minister of Tourism: What reports, if any, has he received about the appeal of New Zealand as a visitor destination following the Tourism New Zealand trade show in Sydney this week?

This week, I led a delegation to one of our first major international trade events by Tourism New Zealand since the COVID outbreak in March 2020. The Tourism New Zealand Regional Showcase in Sydney followed the Prime Minister’s successful trade and travel visits to Singapore and Japan last month. The resumption of tourism and trade missions is crucial to our economic recovery as we reconnect with the world. Around 60 delegates from almost 30 regional tourism organisations in New Zealand took part in the two-day event with one common message, and that is, “New Zealand is now fully open for business.” Tourism New Zealand advised that there was a great energy in the room and immense interest in New Zealand from buyers as a business opportunity. Australian buyers have highlighted that New Zealand will be one of their priority destinations for the year ahead.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: What reports has he seen of the value to regional destinations at the event the Minister attended, especially to Wairarapa?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: Destination Wairarapa made a strong showing at the event, promoting the Classic New Zealand Wine Trail, covering the entire Wairarapa electorate. Barb Hyde from Destination Wairarapa said that it was “great to be back at a Tourism New Zealand event. Travel, trade, getting lots of incoming bookings and inquiry; exciting times ahead.” But not to be outdone, Visit Fiordland manager Stu Cordell was also one of the representatives at the event. He was keen on selling the idea of how easy it is to get to Southland and Fiordland. We’re only three hours away and it doesn’t have to be a once-in-a-lifetime trip. He further discussed that New Zealand is a cheaper travel destination for Australians than America and the carbon footprint was smaller. This is an important point because there has been a global shift towards considering the environmental impact of travel.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: What reports has he seen about the value of the event to our cities?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: The Tourism New Zealand event served as a springboard for Auckland Unlimited to facilitate an additional event called Auckland is Calling. Gavin Oliver, chair of Auckland Regional Tourism Forum, said, “It is fantastic to be getting offshore and promoting Auckland once again. … Previously, Australia was our largest visitor market for the city, so events like this deliver a vital link for the city’s wider business community, allowing us both to reconnect with former key partners and develop new relations, which in turn will start to see revenue again flow through our city’s visitor economy.”

💬 Joseph Mooney: What appeal does the Minister think New Zealand will have as a visitor destination if tourism and hospitality businesses can’t open their doors due to staff shortages, given that accredited employer work visa holders won’t be coming until the end of August, at the earliest, and if only 337 working holidaymakers have entered New Zealand so far?

💬 SPEAKER: I’m going to the let the Minister answer the question, but I will remind the member that he should go back and have a look at the very good point of order made by the Hon Michael Woodhouse earlier in the week.

💬 Hon STUART NASH: Immense appeal.

Question No. 4—Health

4. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Yes. In particular, I stand by the actions that this Labour Government is taking to rebuild our public health system and to address serious health inequities such as the fact that Māori, on average, die seven years earlier than Pākehā, and Pacific people, rural people, and disabled people are routinely excluded from basic healthcare. If we don’t make these changes, it will mean tolerating more inequity, more ill health, and more premature deaths.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: When he wrote that $14 million had been spent over just eight months on the health reform transition unit, how many cataracts would $14 million fund to prevent people going blind?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The purpose of the health reforms is so that we get better health coverage, improved health coverage, right throughout Aotearoa New Zealand. We need to see a shift from the expensive end of healthcare, which is the hospitals, into better primary care into communities—especially rural communities—who suffer from poor access to healthcare.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: When he wrote recently that $1 million had been spent over the past eight months on health reform PR, does he think the 36,000 people waiting to see a specialist will see this as $1 million of wasteful spending on PR spin while they wait in pain?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No. I think what New Zealanders expected to see is a health service, and, actually, a Government focused on a health service that delivers for all New Zealanders. It is failing at the moment because of years of under-investment by the previous Government running down buildings and underpaying nurses, and this is a Government determined to fix it.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: When he wrote recently that half a million dollars had been spent on health reform directors’ fees over just six months, would New Zealanders rather have had their hip joints repaired?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I think what New Zealanders wanted to see is a health system that is no longer sort of vulcanised through 20 different health decision-makers, and actually have a coordinated, coherent health system run cohesively so that it benefits all New Zealanders and delivers services where, currently, New Zealanders are struggling to get them.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Did Treasury’s recent D assessment for his leadership of the ministry take into account the spending of millions of PR spin—

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that we have to respect members here, but the assessment that the member is referring to is not an assessment of the Minister, and he does know that.

💬 SPEAKER: I want an absolute assurance from the member that what he said was accurate.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: In replying, Mr Speaker, I said “for his leadership of the ministry”.

💬 SPEAKER: I want the member to confirm that that is what has been assessed in those words, because it’s—we’ve now had two cracks. The member has an obligation now, because he’s been reminded—it’s in the same area as personal explanations. If he’s wrong, it is a very serious matter.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Mr Speaker, I’ll reframe the question another time. Thank you.

💬 SPEAKER: A further supplementary—no? Right.

Question No. 5—Health

5. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his Government not including a rural health strategy, for the approximately 750,000 New Zealanders who live rurally or remotely, in the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill?

Yes. The Government was pleased to see a wide range of submissions on the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill earlier this year. It highlighted the level of excitement across Aotearoa New Zealand for improved health outcomes. On the question of different health strategies mandated by statute, there were nearly 20 proposals for distinct health strategies. I’m satisfied that the list of distinct strategies now provided for in the bill provides the necessary cover and that the needs of rural communities will be fully addressed, including through the locality planning process.

Brooke van Velden: Why does the health reform have a hauora Māori strategy, a Pacific health strategy, and a disability strategy, but not a rural health strategy, when rural health was mentioned over 80 times in the Health and Disability System Review and it was identified that people living in rural towns can have poorer health outcomes—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! The member, I think, had about four legs to that. I’ll let the Minister answer one or two of them.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think the member will be aware, of course, that of the 750,000 people she referred to in her primary question—which relates to the second question she asked—of course, many are women, many are Māori, many are Pacific, some are disabled. So the strategies that have been identified for the purpose of the bill cover areas of a population, I think, where the failure to provide service has, in some respects, been egregious. But no one has been overlooked; there is a New Zealand - wide health plan, and locality planning networks will give rural communities way more say than was ever the case before.

Brooke van Velden: Can he guarantee that access to mental health services and midwives will improve for rural New Zealanders under his reforms, and, if so, does he have a strategy to reach for this improved access?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: What I am confident of is that with the system that will take effect from 1 July, subject to the legislation passing, rural communities will have a much better chance of seeing the services that they really need in their rural communities delivered in the way that makes sense to them and makes sense to the Government, who is funding it. So there will be a difference and it will be a positive difference for members of rural communities.

Brooke van Velden: How can he guarantee that localities will improve outcomes for rural New Zealanders when he can’t say how many localities there will be and rural GPs still have no details about how these reforms will create better access to faster treatments?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I think I said in an earlier question in today’s question time, there is a process for identifying localities based on some very broad criteria, and that is yet to happen right across the country. What we do know, though, is, from the nine locality prototypes that have been established—most of which have a strong rural community dimension to them—that it’s an opportunity to test how that works; to draw in the health providers in those areas; to draw on the community voices, including rural community voices, to make sure that they get the best health services they possibly can get in their communities.

Brooke van Velden: Why are rural New Zealanders so often overlooked and forgotten by this Government, and is this just the latest case of the Government ignoring the needs of rural New Zealand?

💬 SPEAKER: No. Before the Minister answers, I’m going to invite the member to rephrase her question.

Brooke van Velden: Why are rural New Zealanders so often overlooked by this Government?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Rural communities are not overlooked; they’re highly valued by this Government. That is why the first nine locality prototypes announced for the new health reforms—at least seven of them have very significant rural communities attached to them. They will have a strong voice in the new process and rural communities will be better served with health services as a result.

Question No. 6—Immigration

6. to the Minister of Immigration: What recent announcements has he made about the Immigration Rebalance plan?

Noa‘ia, Mr Speaker, yesterday the Government announced alongside the full opening of the border two months ahead of schedule a rebalance of our immigration settings. These settings will provide significantly simplified processes and support a higher-wage, higher-productivity economy. The accredited employer work visa will reduce the number of visa categories from six to one, resulting in a simplified system for both employers and workers. The Green List will provide a new streamlined pathway to residency for those globally hard-to-fill roles as well as a clear work-to-residence pathway, incentivising and attracting high-skilled migrants to New Zealand and giving more certainty to our businesses and migrants. More broadly, the rebalance will make it easier to attract higher-skilled migrants while supporting some sectors to transition away from their reliance on lower-paid migrant workers, which we know has become unsustainable.

💬 Ibrahim Omer: How will the immigration rebalance provide support to New Zealand’s economic recovery?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: By making it easier to attract higher-skilled migrants and supporting some sectors to transition away from their reliance on lower-paid migrant workers, New Zealand is better supported on a path to economic recovery. New Zealand cannot return to the pre-pandemic trends that saw us overly reliant on growing numbers of lower-paid workers and resulted in the increased exploitation of migrants. COVID-19 has showed us that that is not a sustainable model. For the past decade, our immigration settings haven’t encouraged businesses to invest in people and technology, because it has been cheaper and easier for many businesses to hire low-paid migrants. The immigration rebalance will help lift working conditions for everyone, improve career pathways for New Zealanders, and encourage businesses to focus on increasing productivity and resilience as part of our plans for economic recovery from the pandemic.

💬 Ibrahim Omer: What transitional supports will be made available to employers?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Well, we acknowledge that these changes cannot happen overnight. There are some industries that have been hit particularly hard by the pandemic, which is why the Government has agreed to temporarily exempt tourism and hospitality businesses from paying the median wage to recruit migrants on an accredited employer work visa into most roles. Additionally, new sector agreements provide access for specified sectors to lower-paid migrant workers, which is in addition to those employers being able to continue to access working holiday-makers at any wage. Finally, around 20,000 visa holders with visas expiring before the end of 2023 are being granted either a six-month extension or a new two-year visa with open work conditions so they and their employers won’t be affected by these changes and we can keep the skills that we need within the country.

Question No. 7—Police

7. to the Minister of Police: Does she agree that youth offending is driven by income deprivation, mental health challenges, and trauma; if so, how will $500 million for more police on the street reduce youth offending?

Yes. This Government is committed to addressing the drivers of offending, which requires an all-of-community response. It is important to note that while Budget 2022 sees a record investment into our police, this is not just funding for more police officers. Of the $562 million, $208 million is to deliver the firearms register, which will help us fill the 30-year information deficit when it comes to firearms in our communities. There is $94 million for prevention programmes, such as Resilience to Organised Crime in Communities, which will see police, the Ministry of Social Development, and other agencies working with communities and whānau to address the drivers of offending, and there is $12 million to provide more support for victims of serious crime. The additional funding through Budget 2022 is about having a strong enforcement capability available, while at the same time having smart prevention programmes in place.

💬 Golriz Ghahraman: Is the Minister aware that approximately 90 percent of young people who are detained have what is described as a serious learning disability and, on average, have had at least two traumatic life events; if so, how will more police on the streets address this?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: To address youth offending, we need an all-of-community response, and police recognise their role in that. That’s why we’ve added 109 more police officers to work directly with our young people over the past two years. These staff are trained to deal with our most at-risk youth.

💬 Golriz Ghahraman: Will more police on the street be counterproductive in keeping rangatahi Māori safe from harm and crime when young Māori are more than seven times more likely to be on the receiving end of police force and nine times more likely to be tasered by police than Pākehā in similar circumstances?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: This is an issue that both the commissioner and I are committed to addressing. The police have developed Te Huringa o Te Tai strategy, which is developed in partnership with iwi Māori and addresses concerns and helps to reduce victimisation, offending, and injuries amongst Māori.

💬 Golriz Ghahraman: Does she agree with the former Children’s Commissioner, Judge Andrew Becroft, that remanding children and young people in police cells together with adult detainees is completely unacceptable, and, if so, will she divert the funding into addressing this breach in police cells?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I do agree, and police do take age into account when placing people in custody and do separate age groups where possible. Using a police cell for young people is the last resort. Specialised youth facilities operated by Oranga Tamariki provide a better environment for young people than police cells.

💬 Golriz Ghahraman: Does she agree that the funding for more police on the street would be better spent, both for police and for communities, to boost the incomes of families living in poverty, given that social and income deprivation is shown to be the main cause of youth offending?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: What I would agree with is that our communities tell us that more police on the street means more visibility, which means they feel safer in their homes. I think the police are required to undertake their role as dealing with offenders, and that is the appropriate response for us.

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: Has she seen any correlation between an increase in police numbers and an increase in proactive policing and, therefore, a decrease in people on a pathway to prison?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Yes, I have, and, on top of that, I have seen many programmes that police deliver that help to keep our youth out of offending, including Te Pae Oranga, which this Budget will increase by a further $8 million, and it will secure the 20th site which helps our young people stay out of the justice system.

Question No. 8—Transport

8. to the Minister of Transport: What recent reports has he seen on the impact of the Government’s half-price public transport scheme?

In March, the Government moved swiftly to announce a reduction in fuel excise duty and road-user charges in response to rapidly escalating fuel prices brought about as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. As a part of that package, we also funded half-price public transport fares across New Zealand to provide more options for commuters to get around. The response from Kiwis has been extremely positive. Auckland public transport use last week was 29 percent higher than the day before the fare reduction came into effect, reaching its highest levels since before the August lockdown last year. Wellington bus use is up 24 percent over the same period, and Christchurch is up by 21 percent. While there are likely to be a number of factors driving this recovery in public transport patronage, the early evidence is that half-price fares are supporting more people to give public transport a go, helping to reduce congestion and emissions.

💬 Naisi Chen: What recent reports has he seen on the impact of the scheme on inter-regional rail services?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Inter-regional rail has seen strong increases over the last two months since the fare reductions were announced. Demand for the Capital Connection has increased 90 percent in April compared to March 2022. And everyone’s favourite inter-regional rail service, Te Huia, saw services over April nearly triple in demand, with the highest average number of weekday passengers on Te Huia—

💬 Andrew Bayly: Three people to nine.

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: —ever.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, that does come pretty close to misleading the House; just a bit of a warning to the member.

💬 Naisi Chen: What, if any, are the benefits of half-price public transport fares?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Not only does the reduction in fares promote public—[Member cheers]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I don’t know why Mr Bayly is joining the rest of the “B”s in their noisiness. Can he just settle down, please.

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Not only does the reduction in fares promote public transport as a more viable option for Kiwi families, it also takes cars off the road, leading to fewer cars on the road, cleaner air, and less noise and air pollution. Ahead of the emissions reduction plan released next week, it is more important than ever to have effective, reliable, and accessible public transport services in place. Our Government is committed to ensuring that public transport is supported, is funded, and is promoted to give Kiwis real transport choices.

Question No. 9—Immigration

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

Noa’ia, Mr Speaker. Yes, in the context in which they were made. I also stand by this Government’s plan to fully reopen the border two months ahead of schedule. We are reopening under a rebalanced immigration system that is smart and simplified, that will give businesses better access to skills and improve working conditions for migrant labour. I also stand by the 2021 resident visa that will give over 190,000 migrants residency. Immigration New Zealand have advised that they are making good progress on these applications, with over 46,000 migrants having been made residents so far.

💬 Erica Stanford: How can he stand by his statement on the Hosking show yesterday that partners of work visa holders would be better off under his new proposal, because existing work partnership visas require visa holders to work a minimum of 30 hours a week, when immigration instructions have never required these visa holders to work any set number of hours?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Well, I think I made those comments this morning, not yesterday. As I said on the show, we’re giving more options to partners. They can either come to New Zealand and have a work visa, or come here and have a visitor visa. There’s been some skulduggery suggesting that partners of those accredited employer work visa holders can’t come to New Zealand—they absolutely can.

💬 Erica Stanford: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t believe that the question that I asked was addressed, around the disparity between his comment—

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the member had a very specific part of the question, which was answered, and it went to the accuracy of the statement that the member made.

💬 Erica Stanford: How can he now use the new Immigration Online system as a way to guarantee processing time frames of the 30 days for the accredited employer work visa, when he has now broken his promise to process 80 percent of resident 2021 visas in 12 months, which uses the same online system?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: As I said in the primary answer, we’re still committed to making sure that we make 190,000 migrants residents still, and, as I say, I’ve been given assurances by officials that the investment in the new online system will make the process a lot more efficient.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is it intended that migrants in lower-paid but essential sectors—such as aged care or construction—will never be eligible for residency, no matter how long they live and work in New Zealand; if not, what pathways to residency can the Minister guarantee for these workers?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: If the member looks at the Green List, and those occupations that are straight to residence, there are a plethora of occupations in the building and construction sector.

💬 Erica Stanford: Can he explain why a midwife or a nurse would choose New Zealand when residence now takes two years plus processing times, when Australia offers immediate residence pathways for both?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Well, because we’re giving them certainty about a streamlined pathway to residence they didn’t have before. Also, under the previous regime there was only one category of nurses that we gave a pathway to residence. Now, under the Green List that we announced yesterday, we have 13 categories of nurses to make sure we can fill the staffing shortages that we have in terms of nurses.

💬 Erica Stanford: How can New Zealanders trust him when his own comments show he doesn’t understand immigration instructions, he hasn’t been able to fulfil his promises, and his policies will drive skilled migrants to Australia?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Because I’m more trustworthy than that member.

Question No. 10—Climate Change

Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the Minister of Climate Change—

💬 Hon Member: You need to cheer up!

💬 SIMON COURT: —does he agree with economist—

Order! Order! The member still addresses me. If he wants to have a cosy chat, he doesn’t need to do it at question time. Start again, please.

10. to the Minister of Climate Change: Does he agree with economist Matt Burgess, who said that “further policies are not necessary … Cap-and-trade schemes like the ETS effectively neutralise other emissions policies”; if not, why not?

Before I respond directly to the member’s question, I do want to note that Mr Burgess is a parliamentary staff member for the National Party and I don’t believe it’s appropriate to bring staff into parliamentary debate. However, as the member has asked the question, my answer to the first part is: no, and to the second: because he is wrong. I note that Mr Burgess’ boss, Nicola Willis, said earlier today in the emissions budget debate that, “We continue to believe that the emissions trading scheme will be a very important part of how emission[s] reduction[s] is achieved. We also acknowledge that there will be a very important place for complementary policies alongside the emissions trading scheme—for example, catalysing the market around networks such as in electric vehicle charging, and potentially in other areas.”

💬 Simon Court: Has the Minister received advice on how much the additional policies proposed in his emission reduction plan will cost the average New Zealand household, and, if so, what did that advice say?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, there are now three more sleeps until the—four more sleeps until the member gets to see what’s in the emissions reduction plan.

💬 Hon Member: You give me a lot of confidence now!

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: I will give the member an example—sorry, I haven’t had a great deal of sleep at all recently, so I’m not really counting. I will give the member an example of how policies that get introduced outside of the emissions trading scheme actually reduce costs on households rather than increase them as he is positing. For example, the recent Clean Car Discount programme that was introduced by the Hon Michael Wood has led to a 300 percent increase in the importation of electric vehicles into this country. If you wanted to achieve the same result using only the emissions trading scheme (ETS), that would mean that the ETS unit price would need to be just shy of $600. The distributional impact of that on households in New Zealand is actually unacceptable. So complementary measures are a way of ensuring—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m sure it is of a lot of interest to the House, but there’s already been one debate today in this area. I’m sure we’re going to have some next week, and notwithstanding the broad invitation in the question, the limitations on length of answers aren’t waived by very open questions.

💬 Simon Court: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was quite specific: had he received advice on how much his proposed plan would cost the average New Zealand household? I don’t believe he responded to that effectively.

💬 SPEAKER: Does the member believe—did the Minister; well he went around the block on something else, or something close to it. I think he could probably give us an answer which was about one word long.

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: Mr Speaker, yes.

💬 Simon Court: Can the Minister guarantee that the cost of additional policies under his emissions reduction plan will not add to the increasing costs Kiwi households and businesses are already dealing with?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: As I’ve just said, at some length, many of the policies that we’re introducing in order to reduce emissions actually have the effect of reducing household costs. For example, the home insulation scheme, which has seen tens of thousands of houses insulated over the course of the last decade or so, has reduced household energy bills dramatically and made those homes much more energy efficient. If you wanted to achieve the same result by driving up the electricity cost just through the emissions trading scheme, that would mean that actually many people just switch off the heating and freeze. I would ask that member whether he wants New Zealanders to freeze.

💬 Hon David Parker: Has the Minister seen any reports as to whether the ACT Party voted for or against—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order!

💬 Hon David Parker: —the emissions trading scheme (ETS)?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The Minister might have been dressing it up, but he was inviting the Minister to comment on something for which he doesn’t have responsibility. It was a nice try, but we’re not going there.

💬 Dr James McDowall: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d actually like to hear the answer to that.

💬 SPEAKER: Sorry?

💬 Dr James McDowall: I’d actually like to hear the answer to that question.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, if the member was a bit more experienced, he’d be having an early Thursday, all right? So he’s had his warning.

💬 Simon Court: To the Minister, does he agree with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s climate policy which has returned billions in carbon tax refunds to Canadians—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Just—question, all right? Not a speech in the middle of the question.

💬 Simon Court: —carbon tax refund to Canadians to help Canadians adjust to this new reality, and, if so, will he support ACT’s policy of giving a $250 carbon tax refund to every New Zealander every year?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: No. I do not agree with the ACT Party’s policy. However, I will say that, actually, it is nice to see that the ACT Party is engaging with climate change policy in at least reasonably serious terms. On that, earlier today Mr Court waxed lyrical about Kenworth trucks—

💬 SPEAKER: No, no, no. Further supplementary? No? All right.

Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

11. to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: Noa‘ia, Mr Speaker. What reports has he seen supporting the Commerce Commission’s analysis of competition in the retail grocery sector?

Television New Zealand’s Fair Go ran a story on Monday evening canvassing some of the major problems New Zealand faces with competition in the retail grocery sector. In particular, the story reiterated the Commerce Commission’s finding that the major grocery retailers are taking in excess of $1 million in excess profits each and every day out of hard-working Kiwis’ pockets. There is a serious case for change when it comes to competition in the grocery sector and, on behalf of the Government, I intend to formally respond to the market study’s recommendations in the coming weeks.

💬 Arena Williams: What changes have already been pledged in response to the Commerce Commission report?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The major supermarkets have already said they will commit to stopping the practice of land banking and restrictive land covenants. Supermarkets are also working to ensure pricing and promotions are simple and easy to understand, and that their loyalty programmes and data collection have clear and transparent disclosures, and supermarkets and other stakeholders are already meeting to progress a mandatory code of conduct.

💬 Matt Doocey: You’ve told ’em!

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: These things were not happening before a market study and underscore some of the benefits of shining some sunlight on what is going on in that industry.

💬 Arena Williams: Does he believe—

💬 SPEAKER: No, before the member goes on, we’re going to have a withdrawal and apology from Matt Doocey.

💬 Matt Doocey: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: Thank you.

💬 Arena Williams: Does he believe the supermarkets’ recently announced price roll-backs on essential items will help consumers?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It is a nice gesture from the supermarkets, but the price freeze does not address the systemic competition problems in the sector that have been in place for a very long time. This Government does not believe Kiwis should have to spend so much on the basics, especially when supermarkets are earning in excess of a million dollars in excess profits every day. Addressing the rising cost of groceries was a Labour campaign promise at the last election, and I look forward to formally responding on behalf of the Government to the Commerce Commission’s recommendations in the coming weeks.

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: In terms of the figure of a million dollars a day out of Kiwis’ pockets, would they be taking more or less out of Gerry Brownlee’s pocket than they would out of the average—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m just trying to work out whether my friend and colleague is going to have an early shower, but I think he will withdraw and apologise. He absolutely knows that he is out of order. If it wasn’t for the prevalence of such behaviour today in other parts of the House, I think the member would be having an early shower. He will withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: I withdraw and apologise.

Question No. 12—Transport

12. to the Minister of Transport: Is he confident NZTA is meeting his expectation of “responsible and proportionate spending”; if so, is he satisfied that NZTA’s spending is giving taxpayers good value for money?

Yes, overall, I do. At the same time, I continue to advise all agencies that I’m responsible for about my expectations around spending. However, on this side of the House, we are unapologetic about supporting Waka Kotahi to transition from an agency focused solely on building roads to one with a broader set of objectives around our climate resilience and safety ambitions. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) that we inherited did not have the resources to deliver on that broader vision, nor even to fulfil its basic regulatory functions. That’s why we have increased its resourcing, for example, to spend 40 percent more on the maintenance of regional roads around New Zealand; that’s why we’ve increased its resourcing to provide decent public transport in our cities; and that’s why we’ve increased its resourcing to run a fit-for-purpose and safe regulatory system in place of the broken one we inherited that probably cost at least one person their life under the previous Government’s system. There are a wider range of objectives we have for the transport system. We’ll continue to keep an eye on appropriate spending, but also we’re going to keep an eye on those objectives and not constantly be down just in the weeds.

💬 Simeon Brown: Why has the number of communications staff at NZTA more than doubled from 32 in 2017 to 88 last year, and why does NZTA need twice as much help with communications under this Minister’s watch?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I note two points in response to the member’s question. The first is that Waka Kotahi is conducting more of that activity from within its own resources and actually has fewer external contractors doing that work than it did in the 2017/18 year. Secondly, what I note is that the agency is doing more. It is getting on with more projects to deliver transport outcomes for New Zealanders in the region, and many of those communications staff are not sitting in offices in Wellington; they’re actually out there in the regions communicating with communities like the Tauranga community about the Takatimu North Link or with the East Auckland community about the Eastern Busway.

💬 Simeon Brown: How many of those 88 communications staff were dedicated to the Auckland light rail project, and how many staff are needed to tell Aucklanders that zero metres of light rail have been delivered in five years?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: What Aucklanders expect of us is that we actually are serious about building a fit-for-purpose public transport system for their city after 50 years of neglect. We’ll continue to talk and engage with Aucklanders about those ambitions, and I think that Aucklanders support that rather than the big talk and no action on the other side of the House.

💬 Simeon Brown: What value have taxpayers received from the $55 million spent on Auckland light rail for zero metres of light rail tracks to be delivered, and will construction begin before the 2023 election?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Anyone who seriously understands how the transport sector works will be aware that money needs to be invested in detailed planning, consenting, and design before significant projects are implemented and are built. Perhaps if the previous Government had put more of that upfront investment into Transmission Gully, it wouldn’t have turned into such a mess that we had to clean up.

💬 Simeon Brown: What value have taxpayers received from two giant zeros to promote the Road to Zero campaign, or were they just built to advertise how little this Government’s actually delivered?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Considerably more than under the previous Government, which, over the five-year period between 2013 and 2018, oversaw a 50 percent increase in deaths in our road transport system.

💬 Simeon Brown: Supplementary.

💬 SPEAKER: No, the member’s run out.