Oral Questions

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

The GDP figures released last week and today’s consumer confidence figures are both indications of the global challenges that are facing the New Zealand economy. Stats New Zealand reported last week that GDP edged down by 0.2 percent in the March 2022 quarter. It is worth noting that on an annual basis the economy grew 5.1 percent and is 3.3 percent higher than the pre-pandemic December 2019 quarter. The quarterly decline in GDP was mainly due to exports falling by 14.3 percent compared with the previous December quarter, reflecting the volatile global situation from the pandemic, ongoing supply chain disruption, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. For the year, though, exports were still up 1.9 percent. Excluding the external sector, the domestic economy remained resilient, led by household spending and business investment. This is a tough period for many households and businesses, but the New Zealand economy is well positioned to deal with these global challenges. Unemployment is at a record low. We are in a strong fiscal position, with debt levels well below those of countries we compare ourselves with and we are one of only a small number of countries with the highest credit rating available from the two leading rating agencies.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What indications has he seen about the prospects for the economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Activity in the services sector picked up in May. The seasonally adjusted BNZ - Business New Zealand Performance of Services Index for May was released yesterday and rose three points to 55.2, its highest level since June 2021, and above the long-term average. Both new orders at 62 and sales at 59.6 jumped, while employment declined slightly and deliveries recovered from earlier lows. The BNZ’s economist said the data was supportive of their view that there will be a solid bounce in GDP in the June quarter. Nevertheless, we do know that 2022 is continuing to be a tough year for households and businesses. We will continue to support those that have been affected the most, and the easing of restrictions and opening up to skilled workers and tourists will help business and the economy rebuild.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: How is the global environment impacting the New Zealand economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The volatile global environment has led the World Bank and the OECD to lower global growth forecasts and upgrade inflation estimates. The Ukraine war is the main driver of the downgrades, pushing up energy and food prices in many countries. Inflation rose to 8.6 percent in the United States and is forecast to go above 10 percent in the United Kingdom. Central banks around the world are now raising interest rates to bring inflation down. For New Zealand, a slowdown in growth among our trading partners will have an impact on our prospects. Current economic forecasts are that New Zealand’s growth will slow from what we have experienced and they will continue to be updated as new data comes in. But as I have said before, New Zealand finds itself in one of the strongest positions in the world to support Kiwis as we navigate our way through these challenging times.

💬 Nicola Willis: Has the Minister seen the IMD world economic competitiveness rankings in which New Zealand plummeted to 31st place, the biggest drop of all 63 countries included in the survey this year and down from 16th when National left office?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Funnily enough, I have seen that survey and I note in the latest version of it the following areas where New Zealand has improved: real GDP growth—

💬 Nicola Willis: Ha, ha!

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member asked the question. Real GDP growth; real GDP growth per capita; labour force - long-term growth; long-term unemployment; GDP per capita; the unemployment rate; export of goods; medium- and high-tech value-added; unemployment rate - gender ratio. Yes—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, particularly the progress being made on this Government’s plan to reconnect New Zealand to the world. From midnight last night, travellers no longer need, for example, a COVID-19 pre-departure test to enter New Zealand, and we know that that will be welcome news for many from our tourism sector. And, at the end of this week, I will travel to Europe to promote Aotearoa New Zealand’s trade and tourism interests, which will build on the progress we’ve made with the recent free-trade agreement with the United Kingdom. Our borders being open and the removal of pre-departure testing represent important milestones in our reconnecting strategy that creates real opportunities for our recovery. We’re letting the world know that we are open for business, study, trade, and travel.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she agree with her health Minister that the system is “coping”, and, if so, why are thousands of people waiting longer than six hours in the emergency department and elective surgeries are being cancelled?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What, of course, the Minister will be reflecting is that we often in New Zealand see over the winter periods pressure in our health system. But, as we flagged at the beginning of the year, we anticipated that this period would be worse than most, because those things that exacerbate pressure in our system include, for instance, seasonal illnesses, and influenza has not been present circulating in New Zealand for two years and is now circulating in Australia and New Zealand with a vengeance. Flu is outstripping, for instance, COVID-19 hospitalisations when it comes to respiratory illness in our Auckland hospitals. But we are encouraging and working alongside the health sector on innovative solutions, such as those you’ve seen in Counties Manukau, and, of course, an increase in the availability and subsidies around flu vaccines, all in an effort to ease those pressures.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why, then, did the Government exclude nurses from the fast-track, straight-to-residency immigration pathway when we have a nursing shortage of more than 4,000?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ve seen some of the Opposition’s statements in this area which are completely misleading and wrong. The most important factor here is that New Zealand needs new nurses, so for the first time we are fast-tracking them to residency on the basis that they are willing to be a nurse. Now, if the member thinks that the best option is for us to remove the criteria that they continue to be a nurse, I don’t see how that helps our nursing shortage.

💬 Christopher Luxon: What message does it send to the overseas nurses we are trying to attract when Australia offers them immediate residency but this Government refuses to do so?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, misleading. Our message is “Come to New Zealand and you will be fast tracked for residency.”, and our only ask is that you continue to be a nurse. So, Mr Luxon, if your proposal is that we don’t ask people to be nurses when they come in, it will hardly support our efforts.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Which approach does the Prime Minister think will help address issues in the health system: consistently increasing the funding for the health system or not funding it enough for population growth and demographic changes?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is correct. Of course, one of the most significant issues that we have raised by our health workforce is the fact that we have had under-investment over a number of years in health, and that includes, of course, at an operational level, but it includes at a capital level as well. We have worked to rectify both. We’ve increased the number of nurses by thousands, but we still carry vacancies and need to continue to recruit. We’ve funded the ability to do that, and we are recruiting offshore and, for the first time, fast-tracking—not something I saw the National Government do, because they didn’t increase the number of nurses either.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why, despite all this spending, have health outcomes like emergency department wait times and faster cancer treatment got worse under this Government?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, we’ve put hundreds of millions into the catch-up campaign following the global pandemic that is COVID-19. The appropriate point of comparison would not be New Zealand against itself but globally on the impact on the health systems because of the pandemic, where prolonged lockdowns in other countries led to delays in planned care. Yes, there has been an impact in New Zealand but, relative to other countries, not nearly what it would otherwise have been.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why did her Government decide to scrap the national health targets, including the target for emergency department wait times, which University of Auckland research found had saved thousands of lives?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because we saw that some of those measures caused distortionary behaviours in order to be seen to meet the targets. What our health system needed from the National Government of the day was investment; that is what it lacked.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that if her health Minister spent less time focused on building the health bureaucracy in Wellington and more time focused on the front-line health workforce in our hospitals, people wouldn’t be waiting as much as 32 hours in the emergency department or having their surgeries cancelled?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member has displayed his complete lack of understanding of what Health New Zealand is designed to do. One of the issues that we have is we essentially run 20 distinct health systems, almost, in New Zealand. We are not a country that can sustain that, and we’ve seen the impact of that. What we need is the ability for our health network—particularly tertiary care—to work together. We’ve seen the signs of the benefits that can bring when those providers have worked together through COVID. We need the ability to move our health workforce around where the need is. We need the ability for different tertiary institutions to focus on the specialist care that they can provide nationally. We need to make sure that we are funding our community-based provision and ensuring that we have health resource in the places people access it when they need it and not a nine-to-five. These are failings we cannot overcome unless we move to a more national service. That is what Health NZ is. The member continues to call it a bureaucracy; he clearly doesn’t understand the reforms.

Question No. 3—Social Development and Employment

3. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with the widespread concerns about the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill, including from Hāpai Te Hauora, who said that it will “not only stagnate any attempts to pursue better outcomes for tamariki and whānau engaged with Oranga Tamariki but may even perpetuate the harms and dysfunction of the current Oranga Tamariki system at disproportionate and irreparable rates”?

I do not believe it will perpetuate the harms and dysfunctions of the current system; I think, in fact, this bill reflects important steps to doing the complete opposite. I believe that we all have the same goal of improving outcomes for our tamariki and rangatahi. This bill alone will not address every challenge pertaining to Oranga Tamariki; my colleague Minister Davis has considerable work under way to reform Oranga Tamariki. What this bill will do is ensure we have independent monitoring, strong advocacy, and an accessible complaints system in order to ensure Government is held accountable, so we start to actually see real change for our children and young people who are in the system now.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why is Government determined on changing the monitor of Oranga Tamariki from an independent Crown entity to a departmental agency when this inevitably reduces the independence of the oversight?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think it’s very important that we are clear on what system we currently have in place. The Children’s Commissioner between 2015 and 2019 had 78 complaints that were put through them that they then put on to the Ombudsman because the Ombudsman has had the lead role with regards to addressing complaints. The Children’s Commissioner last undertook an investigation back in 2010. In 2019, we set up the Independent Children’s Monitor. We set it up within the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) so it had the support to be initiated and to start up, but with the intention of always removing it out of the Ministry of Social Development. The Kāhui Group that were established to advise the Government on this, by and large, have their recommendations reflected in this bill. The one point of difference is they did think that we should establish a Crown entity for the Independent Children’s Monitor. Where we have landed is a departmental agency that will still have sufficient independence, that will be hosted by Education Review Office, that can’t be told what not to do by the Government, and that will sit alongside the advocate that continues to exist in the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, as well as a strengthened complaints avenue process through the investment that we have put into and will continue to put into the Ombudsman.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Can she identify how the bill provides from Te Tiriti o Waitangi guarantee of the tino rangatiratanga of whānau, hapū, and iwi over the care and protection of tamariki Māori?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There’s been much discussion about whether or not we have consulted broadly enough with regards to this bill. I want to remind the House that there was the Kāhui Group that were put in place to advise the Government and to support the Government’s consultation with Māori. Twenty-two hui were held across the country, with respect to this particular issue—this very important issue. The bill reflects the conversations of those 22 hui that we engaged with. Working with Māori to develop the Treaty components of the bill have been critical to us as a Government. The bill’s Treaty provisions were carefully crafted with Te Kāhui Kāhu, who supported MSD’s consultation with Māori across the country. From the hui, we also heard that people wanted to ensure advocacy wouldn’t be diluted by the monitoring function and were concerned about a conflict between advocacy and monitoring. The changes that we have made keep those two functions clearly separate. From the hui, we heard that there was limited information currently about complaints. The bill places a duty on the Ombudsman to ensure that complaints processes are visible and accessible for children and young people, and their family, whānau, hapū, and iwi. The rights of Māori and Māori children in the system have been front of mind during this whole process of development. We as a Government are comfortable with where we have landed.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, e te Pīka. The question wasn’t to ask how consultation happened; it was very specific. Can she please address it.

💬 SPEAKER: The Minister did address the question. It was a very long answer and had some extra material, but the question was addressed.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is her response to the Hon Dame Tariana Turia, Dame Areta Koopu, Dame Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi, Merepeka Raukawa-Tait, and Lady Tureiti Moxon, who pointed out in their submission that the bill relegates Māori to the provider level, and, effectively, maintains a system that is disruptive?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I disagree with those assertions. The bill creates obligations on the oversight bodies to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The specific clause in the bill directly emerged from key Māori stakeholders, who called for specific obligations to be placed on the oversight bodies, rather than a broad Treaty of Waitangi clause. A broad clause can be open to interpretation and run the risk of diluting the obligations on agencies. We have consulted broadly. This is a huge departure from the system that has been in place. We need to act with urgency to ensure that we do have a very clear and accountable monitoring system in place, as well as support the advocacy that the Children’s Commissioner does, and bolster the complaints process so it is accessible and visible for our children. That is exactly what we are doing through this bill.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will the Minister strengthen oversight by listening to calls from Māori to have independent tangata whenua monitoring of Oranga Tamariki that truly reflects Te Tiriti partnership, not just a Māori advisory board under a Crown agency within the Education Review Office (ERO); and, if not, why not?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Independent Children’s Monitor will be hosted by ERO; it has not been subsumed by ERO. They will share backroom functions. We are bolstering the role for Māori at the table, particularly when we look at the Children’s Commissioner. We heard from the submitters. There will still be a chief Children’s Commissioner who will chair the board, but sitting at that table, alongside the Children’s Commissioner, will be Māori. There has been an absence of Māori at that table in the past. With all due respect to the nine Children’s Commissioners that we have had over the years—all of whom have done a very good job—seven of them have not been Māori; only two of them have been Māori women. We are bolstering the role with regards to Māori and being able to oversee this system, and that can only help our Māori children and rangatahi.

💬 Harete Hipango: Does the Minister agree with the comments of Minister for Children, Kelvin Davis, who has publicly stated, in relation to the submitters on the bill, “To be honest I don’t know what the concerns are—I think it’s just something to grizzle about,”; and why is she not listening to the children and the people with lived experience of the Oranga Tamariki system, who all oppose the bill?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I absolutely support my colleague in his support for the system, in trying to make Oranga Tamariki work better for children. He has been very up front himself about the fact that the system has failed children for far too long, and I’m absolutely with Minister Davis on that. I did receive that member’s minority view on the bill. She was somewhat confused, thinking that Minister Davis was in charge of this bill, and actually stated in her minority view that she didn’t support independent—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think we’re now getting into areas for which the Minister does not have responsibility.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Has he seen a report published by Westpac today stating, “Confidence among New Zealand households has plummeted, dropping to its lowest levels since we began surveying consumers back in 1988”, and does he believe that the Government’s economic management approach is contributing to New Zealanders’ growing pessimism about the economy?

Yes, I have seen the report, which contains a number of confidence measures. Regarding the headline confidence measures, Westpac noted that confidence had only come close to these sorts of lows twice before—first during the recession in the early 1990s and then again during the global financial crisis in 2008-09. With regards to the second part of the question, the Government’s economic management approach has been endorsed by the likes of the IMF, the OECD, Standard & Poor’s, and Moody’s in recent times. This is a tough time for many households and businesses, but we believe we’ve got the balance in our approach about right.

💬 Nicola Willis: Is he concerned that unlike in other countries, New Zealand consumer confidence is lower today than it was in the depths of the global financial crisis, during the COVID lockdowns, or during the recession of the 1990s?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said, Westpac noted that confidence had only come close to these sorts of lows twice before—first during the recession in the early 1990s and then again during the global financial crisis in 2008-09. We’re very well aware on this side of the House just how tough things are for many businesses and households at the moment and that’s the reason why the Government has put so many resources into supporting particularly those in low and middle income households but also on businesses as we’ve gone through the COVID-19 pandemic.

💬 Nicola Willis: What is his explanation for why, despite facing the same global economic challenges as New Zealand, the Australian economy is growing faster than ours, with lower inflation and interest rates and consumers who are far more confident about their economic prospects?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we covered in the House last week, or the week before last, we know that different countries experience the impacts of a global slow-down at different times. I was in Australia towards the end of the last week. There is significant concern there about, for example, household energy costs along with the food prices that are being paid over there as well. New Zealand is in one of the better positions of countries across the world to be able to deal with this challenging economic environment, because we have low unemployment, we have low debt, and we have had strong growth. New Zealand’s prospects are good but this is a tough time for many people.

💬 Nicola Willis: Was he concerned to see New Zealand’s collapse in our global economic competitiveness rankings, accompanied by commentary highlighting low productivity, labour shortages, and short-term policy thinking?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m pleased the member’s allowed me to return to the list I was reading out earlier on about the areas where New Zealand had improved. Just to recap, that’s real GDP growth, real GDP growth per capita, long-term growth in the labour force, long-term unemployment coming down, GDP per capita, unemployment rate, export of goods, medium- and high-tech value-added goods, and the unemployment rate to gender ratio. I do note that an area where the survey authors were concerned was the growth in Government subsidies. That means that if the National Party is agreeing with the survey authors, they now no longer support the wage subsidy scheme that kept a million jobs going in New Zealand, made sure that people stayed attached to their jobs and has unemployment at 3.2 percent. That’s not what we heard from National at the time, but if they want to flip-flop and change their tune, that’s up to them.

💬 David Seymour: Why didn’t the Minister mention that in that world competitiveness index, the headline figure for Government efficiency saw New Zealand fall 10 places, from seventh in the world to 17th in the world over the five years that Labour have been in Government?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because I look at the things that the Government is judged on—things like GDP growth, unemployment, GDP per capita, and making sure that we actually keep people in work. We’ve had reports from the OECD, the IMF, Standard & Poor’s, and Moody’s who have all said that the New Zealand economy is in relatively good shape. I know the member is a half-glass empty person. New Zealand has a resilient economy. These are tough times but we’ll get through them.

💬 David Seymour: Why can’t the Minister accept that the one part of that survey that he is truly able to influence—Government efficiency—is the part of the survey in which New Zealand dropped the most? Why can’t he just accept that?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I can accept is that the Government is responsible for real GDP growth being improved, for the labour force long-term growth being improved, for long-term unemployment being better, and for GDP per capita being better. We know that these are tough times for many households and many businesses. We’ve put in place initiatives to make sure we support New Zealanders. Those have been opposed by the member and indeed by the National Party.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does the Minister agree with Westpac’s Michael Gordon that Kiwis are being squeezed in a way that they haven’t been for decades, and does the Minister accept any responsibility whatsoever for the fact that under his Government New Zealanders are facing more financial pressure than ever before?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On many occasions in the House I have stood up and acknowledged that this is a very tough time for many New Zealand businesses and many New Zealand households. That’s the reason why we have provided significant financial support to New Zealand households and businesses. For example, we’ve lifted main benefit rates in 2020, 2021, and 2022—each one of those opposed by the National Party. We’ve lifted the minimum wage—opposed by the National Party. The member might like to actually come up with some positive ideas instead of constantly going on and on about what’s wrong in the economy rather than supporting New Zealanders to get through this difficult time.

Question No. 5—Building and Construction

5. to the Minister for Building and Construction: What action is the Government taking to address the shortage of plasterboard in New Zealand?

Today, I announced the Government is establishing a ministerial task force of leading construction and supply chain experts to develop further measures—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume her seat. [Interruption] And, when I stand, people will be quiet, Mr Doocey. This is an area where there is a lot of concern. Even if no other member wants to hear the answer, I do. The Hon Dr Megan Woods, please start again.

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Today, I announced the Government is establishing a ministerial task force of leading construction and supply chain experts to develop further measures to ease the plasterboard shortage that New Zealand’s building sector is currently facing. Fletcher Building, with its Gib brand, currently makes up around 95 percent of New Zealand’s plasterboard market and has not been able to keep up with current demands. And this, as we all know, is having a significant negative impact on construction companies across the country—both big and small. The task force will develop quick solutions for the current supply chain constraints, such as examining whether legislative or regulatory change is needed, and streamlining the use of products approved elsewhere to be used here. Additionally, yesterday I wrote to Fletcher Building seeking confirmation that they would not enforce their trademark to protect the use of the colours of the Gib products, which can be a significant barrier to importing alternative plasterboard products. I’m happy to confirm they are not enforcing their trademarks and have assured me they will not do so until May 2023.

💬 Greg O’Connor: What else will the task force consider to free up supply of plasterboard?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The ministerial task force, which will report to me as the Minister for Building and Construction, will also look to ways to streamline the approval of products that are approved in other countries for use in the New Zealand market; explore new distribution models; ensure there is a consistent approach to consenting across New Zealand; and act as a forum for related supply chain concerns. The task force will be comprised of Naylor Love CEO Rick Herd, Master Builders CEO Dave Kelly, Simplicity Living’s Shane Brealy, Sir Stephen Tindall, a representative from Local Government New Zealand, and businessman Tex Edwards. The task force will be supported by the Construction Sector Accord and will deliver real solutions to the current plasterboard supply constraints.

💬 Greg O’Connor: How is the Government ensuring that New Zealand’s residential building products market is fair for consumers?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The ministerial task force is a pragmatic but short-term approach for dealing with the current and immediate plasterboard shortage. That’s why the Government has also asked the Commerce Commission to understand if competition in our residential building supplies market is working, to answer questions surrounding the high concentration of some brands in the supply chains. The Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs will receive the commission’s final advice in December, which will provide the tools for the Government to address material supply constraints for other building products before they impact on our construction sector.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Will she fast track legislation this week to enable new international sources of plasterboard to immediately supply the New Zealand market, provided that plasterboard meets the New Zealand standards, and, if not, why not?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: One of the considerations that the task force will have will be whether or not there needs to be legislative or regulatory change—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Mr Speaker, if only the world was as simple as the member opposite—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think the member probably didn’t make an offensive comment then, but I can’t tell because of the noise that is coming, all right? I want to be able to hear the Minister’s answer and not place at risk suggestions that the Minister is acting inappropriately.

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I was saying, if only the world were as simple as the member is suggesting. One of the issues that will need to be considered, and that we already have been considering, is the way in which guidance is issued to our Building Consent Authorities (BCA). New Zealand tends to use plasterboard in a slightly different way than most jurisdictions. It is used more as a structural element in construction, compared to Australia. Also, from what I’ve seen in media reports of the member’s proposed member’s bill, which I believe hasn’t been lodged—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member’s now got way beyond her responsibility.

💬 David Seymour: What will the ministerial task force be able to achieve that herself and all of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) haven’t already being able to do, and, if nothing, then isn’t this just window dressing—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! Mr Doocey, stand, withdraw, and apologise. Was that the member who made that noise, or was it the member sitting next to him? Mr Doocey, did you make a noise during that question? Mr Brown, did you? Ask the question again.

💬 David Seymour: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister explain what this ministerial task force will be able to achieve that herself and all of MBIE haven’t been able to do to date, and, if she can’t explain it, is this not just window dressing for having no solution?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What this task force will do is work in partnership with our Government, because we are a Government that believes in working in partnership with industry. A number of the people that are on this task force that we’ve been working with for a number of weeks now actually have 28 containers full of Gib on the way to New Zealand. What we want to do is ensure that we are working with industry in partnership to ensure there are no impediments to the private sector being able to achieve what they need to.

💬 David Seymour: Is not the task force going to ultimately recommend that councils be required to accept suitable substitutes to Gib board as plasterboard in New Zealand, and, if that is the case, why don’t we just have MBIE keep a material equivalent register—as recommended by ACT—right now, solve the problem, done?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I said, if only the world were as simple as some members in this Chamber tend to think it is. One of the issues we will need to look at is what further resourcing brands may need in order to do certification of new products that are coming in. We also need to look at the issues around risk and how we manage that with the BCA.

Question No. 6—Social Development and Employment

6. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (remote): Does she agree with the widespread concerns about the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill, including from VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai, who said, “The Government has not listened to a single recommendation from young people with lived experience … These young people have been effectively silenced, and the new systems outlined by the Bill is designed to further muffle and weaken their voices”?

I believe we have a common purpose, which is to ensure the oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system is strong. Our children deserve a system that works for them. This process began for this bill in 2018 through specific engagement with children and young people to hear their views, which informed the Beatie report. We heard from children and young people that they currently did not know where to go when they had a complaint. This bill makes it clear that the Ombudsman investigates complaints and requires them to have a complaints process that is accessible for children. We heard from children and young people that they wanted advocacy services that were diverse ethnically and in terms of life experience. The bill strengthens advocacy by ensuring there is more diversity in the governance at the Office of the Children’s Commissioner. The select committee have made further changes to the bill in response to submissions, which include strengthening the independence of the monitor by adding in a duty to act independently, providing for a named Chief Children’s Commissioner, who will be a visible vocal advocate for children and young people, and ensuring the commission can report directly to the Prime Minister. The bill is not intended to address all of the issues pertaining to Oranga Tamariki, but it will provide a way of monitoring it and holding it to account. It is a vital part of the overall system and it is imperative we strengthen it as soon as possible.

💬 Jan Logie: Why is the bill being allowed to progress when only eight out of 403 submitters supported the bill and when there is such strong opposition from children, young people, Māori, and the social services considered to be experts in the care and protection of children?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: A number of the submissions traversed the same themes when they came in, and many of them touched on some of the issues that I covered in my answer to the primary question. Much of that, I believe, the select committee has done a good job at resolving. It was very clear that people still wanted a Chief Children’s Commissioner, but we still believe that a board is required to strengthen the advocacy of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner. It was very clear that there were areas in the bill where it wasn’t articulated strongly enough with regards to the independence of the monitor, and that certainly has been enhanced. We heard loud and clear—I believe the select committee did—that people still felt that there needed to be a direct ability for the Children’s Commissioner to contact the Prime Minister directly. So that is another area that the select committee covered off. In the revised version of the bill, that has been included. There are a number of other areas where there is change. They came directly from the submissions that were put forward, and I am confident with where the select committee has landed.

💬 Jan Logie: How does the Minister say that the bill reflects consultation with Māori when the key recommendation from the Kāhui Group was for an independent Crown entity, and when Waikato-Tainui specifically told the select committee that the bill does not reflect the consultation they participated in?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think that all of the recommendations and all of the insights that came from the Kāhui Group and the 22 hui across the country were important to informing the bill. As I said earlier in response to the Māori Party question, the only area where I do see a difference, with regards to what we received in terms of feedback and what is in the bill, is with respect to the form of the Independent Children’s Monitor. Yes, they asked for a Crown entity; where we have landed is a departmental agency hosted by the Education Review Office (ERO). It still has the level of independence that we were all seeking. If the Independent Children’s Monitor, when it sits within ERO, decides to investigate something or monitor something, the Government can’t tell it otherwise, and the select committee have made sure that they’ve strengthened the language in the bill to ensure that that is clear and it is in the legislation.

💬 Jan Logie: How will the Minister guarantee child protection for children in the Oranga Tamariki system under the new bill, given the monitor is unable to visit Oranga Tamariki care and protection residences without notice, leaving room for abuse and harm to children to be hidden, as has occurred previously?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The absolute role of Oranga Tamariki, with regards to protection of children, extends beyond the monitor and the advocacy and the complaints process. So I do want to remind the House that there is a much more fulsome programme under way being led by Minister Davis with regards to the reform of Oranga Tamariki and ensuring that our children are protected. What we are putting in place is a monitoring, advocacy, and a complaints process that really has been missing up until now with what we see in the bill. It is strengthened and absolutely goes above and beyond what we have seen before, and I do believe it will make a difference for the children in care.

💬 Karen Chhour: Does the Minister agree that the kindest approach would be to go back to the drawing board with this bill, after 311 submitters—including abuse-in-care survivors, VOYCE – Whakarongo Mai, Save the Children, and the Children’s Commissioner—condemned the bill, and many others felt their voices were deliberately silenced due to the submission period being over Christmas?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I do not believe that it would be kind to the children who are in care not to act with urgency with regards to getting oversight in place for the children that are in care. The Beatie report was very forthright with respect to this and said we need to act with urgency. What we have done is ensured that there is a provision in the bill that states that this must be reviewed within five years. That doesn’t mean that it needs to be the whole, entire five years. If something arises—particularly in relation to the inquiry into State care that is being undertaken—that pertains and is relevant to this particular area, then that can be taken into consideration in a review. As I said, that review must be held within five years; that doesn’t mean it has to be five years out if there’s something that arises that requires more urgency with respect to change.

💬 Jan Logie: Is it not true that if the bill was paused, the monitor would still be able to keep monitoring, the Ombudsmen would still be able to keep investigating, and the Children’s Commissioner could have an increase in funding to increase their role so there’s actually no need for the bill to pass before the royal commission has reported?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As the member has pointed out, there has been a level of independence called on for the Independent Children’s Monitor. If we were to delay, then the Independent Children’s Monitor would remain with the Ministry for Social Development, its powers would continue to be limited to only monitoring the care standards and not the entire system, we wouldn’t have the bolstering of the commission with regards to the diversity at the governance table that we need, and we wouldn’t have the visibility with regards to a complaints process in the Ombudsman’s office that the children so desperately need.

💬 Jan Logie: Does the Minister agree with advice given to her by her own officials that “Ministers will need to balance the perception of the entity being sufficiently independent against the need for Ministers to maintain a degree of control over the nature of the monitoring arrangements”, and, if so, why do Ministers need control over the monitoring of Oranga Tamariki?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The one advantage that we have to the form being a departmental agency is that although we can’t stop the monitor with regards to any work that they may want to undertake or need to undertake to ensure that the system is working for the children, a Government can say to the monitor, “We also need you to look at this.” And that actually, I think, strengthens the power of the monitor for the children that we are all putting first and foremost in this discussion and this debate.

💬 Jan Logie: Will the Minister withdraw this bill and listen to the voices of our tamariki and rangatahi and State-abuse survivors, like Tupua Urlich, who are saying, “This bill is a disservice to our voices and suffering at the hands of the State. We are doomed to repeat history.”?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: If I truly believed that was the case, then of course we would. But I think that we would be doing a disservice to the young people that are in care if we delayed this bill any further, and I stand by it.

Question No. 7—Police

7. to the Minister of Police: What recent briefing has he received on the Police portfolio?

Over the last week, I’ve had several conversations with the Commissioner of Police and received my first formal briefings in my new role as Minister of Police. These briefings have highlighted the challenges in the work undertaken daily by our police to protect our communities. I’m looking forward to the challenges in the new portfolio, and, in the coming weeks, I intend to get out and about and meet as many of our front-line staff as I can, and hear from our local communities.

💬 Ginny Andersen: What will be his first priority as Minister of Police and how does he propose to tackle the challenges facing police in New Zealand today?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: My first job as Minister of Police will be making sure that police have everything they need in order to do their job effectively. That includes making sure that we have the right laws in place for effective policing, that police have what they need to do their job well, and that the public can have confidence in the police and feel safe. My view is that the best way to be effective is to tackle crime at both ends, which is to have an equal focus on ensuring that there are strong public safety measures in place whilst doing everything that we can to provide meaningful crime prevention. I’m interested in what works, not empty slogans. As the Minister, I see that there is significant opportunity for us to better connect the police with our education providers to help deal with some of the underlying drivers of criminal activity amongst our young people, most notably disengagement with education, training, and employment.

💬 Ginny Andersen: What actions is the Government taking to address gang-related crime?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I do want to acknowledge there has been an escalation in gang-related tensions. That’s one of the reasons why the Government has boosted police funding by $562 million and doubled the number of people working on organised crime. What keeps communities safe is more police on the beat with better training and more tactical options available. That’s why we’ve committed to a police-to-population ratio. So, rather than seeing the number of police relative to the size of the population decline, as we were seeing before we became the Government, we want to make sure that we are seeing at least the number of police relative to the ratio of the population on the beat, and that’s why we’ve invested $185 million in front-line safety. Over the next few weeks, I’ll be talking to police and justice officials alongside my colleague the new Minister of Justice, the excellent Kiritapu Allan, to identify other potential future changes to the legislative settings that might help police tackle organised and gang-related crime.

💬 Ginny Andersen: How does he intend on ensuring the long-standing convention of operational independence is maintained between the Minister of Police and the New Zealand Police Service?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Like previous Ministers, I intend to closely observe the long-held position of having a clear line between operational matters of police and the role as politicians. Section 16 of the Policing Act is one that members should make themselves familiar with. It explicitly states that the Commissioner of Police is not responsible to, and must act independently of, any Minister of the Crown regarding the enforcement of the law and the investigation and prosecution of offences. While I intend to work closely with the Commissioner of Police and ensure that he’s constantly aware of my expectations of police, I will not be looking at telling police how to do their jobs. Come on, Mark!

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

8. to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement, “A lot of the advice we’re receiving is that if we are not careful, we’re not targeted, we can make inflation worse”; if so, can she explain whether her Government has followed this advice?

Yes, I stand by my full statement. I note that the second half of the statement the member is quoting was “That’s why things like general tax cuts aren’t the answer because … they don’t deliver much to the majority of people who need a bit of relief and, secondly, they can make inflation worse.” To the second half of the question, the Government needs to weigh up a range of considerations. We considered Treasury analysis that inflationary pressures have almost double the immediate impact on lower and middle income households versus higher-income households, and their advice to target support to those who need it the most. In doing so, we needed to get the balance right between providing support through this challenging period while not unnecessarily exacerbating the issues of inflation. This is why our cost of living payment is targeted to those earning $70,000 or less and why we’ve rejected the Opposition’s plans for untargeted tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the most wealthy New Zealanders.

💬 David Seymour: Did the Treasury advise in respect of the $350 cost of living payment “A broad-based one-off payment of this magnitude would add to inflationary pressures in the short-term … This makes a one-off payment a poor mechanism for supporting households with a longer-term problem,”, and, if so, why didn’t the Government follow that advice as she just claimed?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is selective in what he is choosing to share with this House, as he was with my quote in the primary question. Treasury also said “although the risk to longer-term inflationary pressures is relatively small assuming any interventions of this nature were temporary.” Temporary and targeted—that was the approach the Government took. I note that the member is somewhat contradicting himself, though, because his own proposals are not temporary nor targeted.

💬 David Seymour: How can the Minister seriously stand there and argue that her policies will not create long-term inflation because they won’t solve the problem in the long term either?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That was not the statement I was making. I was reading the statement from Treasury, which was that because they are temporary and targeted, that minimises the inflationary impact in the long term.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister believe New Zealanders are able to see the blatant contradiction between taking advice that giving $350 to a whole lot of people is inflationary and trying to claim that her policies are not inflationary?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I’m reflecting in the answer is that Treasury is differentiating from different types of payments and pointing out—because, of course, they recommended using the benefit system for a one-off payment—that there are ways to do this that have less of an inflationary effect than, say, for instance, broad-based tax cuts. The other point I would make is that the member seems to be implying that that specific decision is the cause or will be a significant contributing factor to the inflation that New Zealand is currently experiencing. The member only need look at what is being experienced globally. OECD inflation is averaging 9.2 percent. The EU is roughly 8 percent. New Zealand at 6.9 percent, yes, is high and we must do what we can to support New Zealanders through this period, but to argue that it is Government spending decisions that are driving those increases in inflation is patently wrong.

💬 David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government of the United Kingdom just increased spending by around 35 percent to exceed a trillion pounds for the first time in the history of that country, that President Biden just brought out US$1.9 trillion of stimulus, and her own Government just increased expenditure from $87 billion a year pre-COVID to $128 billion a year now, and has it occurred to her that maybe all this Government spending and all this inflation in all of those three countries might somehow be connected?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The alternative proposal, I can only assume, from the member is that we should have had no support mechanisms through COVID and that, as a result of that, likely we’d be experiencing right now much higher levels of unemployment, which has its own significant economic impacts. I stand by the decisions that we made.

Question No. 9—Health

9. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that the health system as a whole is “coping”, and what then is the current national percentage of people being seen in emergency departments within six hours?

In response to the first part of the member’s question, I stand by my full statement, which was, “As the minister I look at the system as a whole. I know there are individual hospitals facing very, very serious pressure, but, as a whole, the system is coping.” In response to the second part of the member’s question, I’ve been advised that the preliminary data for the week ending 12 June 2022 indicates that the national percentage of people being seen in emergency departments within six hours is 74.1 percent. I note that the final data is reported to the Ministry of Health a month later, so we won’t have an accurate picture of what has been happening this month until the end of next month. For the sake of completeness, the member should be aware that the three months down to 31 March 2022 shows the range of performance against the target for people being seen in emergency departments within six hours goes from 63.5 percent at MidCentral District Health Board to 95.4 percent at Tairāwhiti District Health Board. The overall average across the hospital network for the third quarter was 78.5 percent.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: When National handed over in 2017-2018, was the six-hour emergency department (ED) wait time better than 90 percent against target, and what responsibility does he take for the 74.1 percent figure he has given to this House today?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No; the target number has fallen over the last five years and that is largely as a consequence of the response to COVID that caused a major difference, but also because, with a system that has had more people added to it, even accounting for the various vacancies that we have at the moment, more people turning up to EDs, it is a system under greater pressure. And in a winter when we have a flu season such as we have not had for at least three years, it is putting even more pressure on the system, and that’s reflected in these measures.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Does he agree that people being made to wait as long as 32 hours in the emergency department, and elective surgeries being cancelled due to unsafe staffing levels, are both signs that the health system is, in fact, not coping as a whole?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: It is a standard measure every winter for hospitals to manage down their planned care in response to expected increases in presentations of respiratory conditions, including the consequences of flu. So there is nothing unusual in that respect. In terms of waiting times in ED, it is correct that there are more people waiting longer. That is a fact. But right now we have roughly 90,000 people presenting to all our ED departments in a month. And of those, regrettably, about 200 are waiting longer than 24 hours.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Which DHBs currently have ED waiting times worse than Middlemore and will they get free weekend GP visits also?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The figure released for Counties Manukau DHB is 76.3 percent on that target for waiting no more than six hours. As I said in my answer to the primary question, there is a range of measures against that target, but there are some EDs where people are waiting longer on average than at Counties Manukau and there are some where they’re waiting less on average than at Counties Manukau.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Which DHBs currently have ED waiting times worse than Middlemore?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I can go through the list of 20 DHBs, if the member would wish—it would take a long part of the time. But I think it is fair to say that, as I indicated, there are some EDs where people are waiting longer than six hours and some where they’re waiting shorter than six hours. Counties Manukau sits around that mid-70s percent mark. There are others—as I’ve indicated, Tairāwhiti sits in the 90s; you’ve got others: Taranaki, Waikato, all in the 70s; you’ve got Auckland DHBs, 79, nearly 80 percent; Bay of Plenty at 78 percent; Canterbury at 81 percent. There’s a range of performances against the measures. I think the critical thing is—because listening to that member and his leader earlier today, there’s sort of a message that somehow this measure is not being kept—this measure is being kept. The difference is that, unlike the previous Government that punishes hospitals for not meeting the target, we use this as a reason to exercise a management intervention to improve the performance of these EDs.

Question No. 10—Education (School Operations)

10. to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations): What recent announcements has the Government made about supporting attendance and engagement at school?

Earlier this month, the Government launched our comprehensive Attendance and Engagement Strategy that sets expectations and targets to turn around years of declining attendance rates. School attendance has been declining since 2015, and COVID-19 has made it worse. Throughout the pandemic, the Government has provided targeted resources and support for schools to respond to any disengagement by students through the Urgent Response Fund (URF). The URF model was distributed during a crisis response; it was during a global pandemic and one of the most challenging times in our recent history. Distributing this funding during this time was never going to lift overall attendance rates higher as we fought COVID-19. It was designed to be responsive to the situation. The strategy we have just launched takes the next steps. It will help us address longstanding issues around attendance and engagement through working closer with communities and addressing the causes.

💬 Marja Lubeck: What targets and expectations have been set by the Government to lift attendance?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: In consultation with schools and communities, we have set ambitious targets for students who fall within the chronic, moderate, and irregular attendance categories. Our headline target is that at least 70 percent of students will be attending class regularly by 2024, and 75 percent by 2026. This takes us back to an even higher rate of attendance than 2015 when the decline started to occur. To put this into context, regular attendance is attending school 90 percent of the time, or nine out of 10 days. Currently only about 60 percent of students are attending at this level. We will achieve this by prevention—identifying early trends of irregular attendance. This is why we have set a new target for schools to notify parents and caregivers on the day of absence, and to establish dedicated action plans to prevent further absences.

💬 Marja Lubeck: What supports are being provided to schools to implement these targets?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: Schools, parents, and wider communities will be well supported with targeted and evidence-based resources. For example, Budget 2022 delivered an $88 million package of proven initiatives, such as $15.5 million for a scale-up of Te Aho o Te Kura Pounamu, support for at-risk ākonga to re-engage in school in line with its proven big-picture approach—supporting around 3,500 at-risk students annually. I know that these targets will be challenging to meet, but it’s vital New Zealand children and young people attend school and get the education they need to set themselves up for life.

Question No. 11—Justice

11. to the Minister of Justice: What are her priorities for the Justice portfolio?

I thank the member for his question and welcome his support for our justice policies over the term. As that member may expect, I am proud to stand behind Labour’s 2020 manifesto and we are committed to working harder and smarter to keep our communities safe, break the cycle of offending, tackle the root causes of crime, and right historic wrongs. Key areas I will look to quickly engage in are: working to prevent and deter organised criminal activity, including progressing changes to the criminal proceeds legislation; advancing the implementation of the Government’s response to the royal commission into March 15; advancing electoral reform changes; building on the work of the previous Minister to provide greater access to justice through significant funding for legal aid; and working to continue to reduce case backlogs in the court. Alongside this work, I want to ensure a victim-centric approach to the portfolio so that all New Zealanders are treated fairly and appropriately within the justice system. There will be much more to do, and I’m looking forward to building on the work this Government has already undertaken within the justice system to date.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: While advancing electoral reform, will it be a priority for her to defend the principle of equal voting rights for all New Zealanders across all levels of Government?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Equal voting rights are critically fundamental to New Zealand’s democracy. And if I think about what we are doing across a broad platform of electoral law reform, the member will be well aware that we are taking some targeted measures before the next election to ensure that our electoral laws are fit for purpose. We also have established a bipartisan independent panel appointed to review our electoral law platforms, which I look forward to the member’s active engagement on in due course.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Then will she advocate, as Minister of Justice, against the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill, which explicitly moves away from the principle of equal voting rights?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: As the member is well aware, that bill is not a Government bill and therefore I have no responsibilities. What I will say, though, it’s a stark contrast, or almost a bit of a situation of the pot calling the kettle black—in that member’s term of Government, of course, they removed regional councillors in 2010 and they established commissioners. What we are doing is ensuring that we support regional democracies, and that indeed is the role of central government. The regional council have come to—

💬 David Seymour: The Minister explicitly said she had no responsibility for the matter, then carried on. Surely that’s out of order—

💬 Hon Kiritapu Allan: I’m happy to answer the question.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, and the question wasn’t whether she had responsibility. The question was “Would she advocate?” and she is answering that question. It’s, you know, sometimes Ministers do and they should be congratulated.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can I take it from her refusal to say she will advocate against the Canterbury bill that it is now Government’s position that the key constitutional principle of equal representation and a representative democracy no longer applies?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The member can take it from my answer that first, I do not have any responsibility for that bill. It is a local government bill. And what we do believe, on this side of the House, is ensuring that democracy is supported by us at a central government level. You have elected representatives from that region that have presented this bill to this House. We will be supporting that bill.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is it one of her priorities to uphold the rule of law; if so, has she reported herself to the Electoral Commission for breaking a law by electioneering on social media on the day of a by-election?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: That member will be well aware that I did not break any electoral laws and that I was not electioneering anywhere.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a document. It’s a screenshot of a Facebook post from the Labour Māori caucus, including one Kiritapu Allan, on the day of the by-election, saying to support Jan Tinetti, Labour candidate for today’s by-election.

💬 SPEAKER: Now, speaking to the—

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: It’s unusual before seeking leave, but I think, in this case, we can hear from the member.

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The screenshot that the member may have is not done by me, not done in my name, and therefore, to his original request, did I campaign on that electoral day? No, I did not. Therefore, it’s out of scope and it should not be tabled.

💬 SPEAKER: OK. I can now put the question as to whether there is any objection. I’m going to ask the member: did the member describe it as being authorised by the member?

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: No; I just said it’s a screenshot of a Facebook post.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, no, I am going to put the leave to the House. Everyone has heard—

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: But it’s publicly available.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Sorry, I’ll just respond to that interjection by the member. Of course, it has been taken down; so it is not publicly available.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, it just shows how unhelpful that was. Is there any objection to that screenshot being tabled? There is none.

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

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is she surprised that, when the Government carries on prioritising reducing prison sentences for the nation’s worst three-strikes offenders, at a time of rising violent crime, some people conclude that the Government is soft on crime?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I’ll reiterate remarks I’ve made previously this week: that framing is completely unhelpful, first and foremost. I will reiterate the remarks of their former leader that, within the criminal justice sector, there have been moral and fiscal failures throughout the criminal justice approach—by that previous Government, I might add. When we are removing three-strikes legislation, we are upholding the integrity of our constitutional fundamentals. When that previous Government introduced that three-strikes law, there was no evidence to support that Act as a deterrent. It was criticised roundly as having no evidential foundation, and we are upholding our 2020 manifesto commitment to ensure that we are removing that sentencing reform from this House. And it should have no place in any future Government.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Supplementary?

No; the member’s used his supplementaries.

Question No. 12—COVID-19 Response

12. to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Mānawatia a Matariki, Mr Speaker. What recent announcements has she made about reconnecting New Zealanders to the world?

From midnight last night, travellers to New Zealand are no longer required to take a COVID-19 pre-departure test when entering the country. The Government was clear: we intended to remove this requirement for travellers by 31 July. I’m happy to say, we have been able to bring the time line forward as COVID-19 cases have continued to decrease despite nearly 400,000 arrivals since the border reopened. Of those arrivals, 90 percent are undertaking their required testing once they’re in the country and only a fraction of those are returning positive results. Removing pre-departure testing is just one more step the Government is taking to safely reconnect New Zealanders to the world.

💬 Shanan Halbert: Why has the Government removed pre-departure tests?

💬 Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The Government has been aware of the challenges that pre-departure testing is posing to those wishing to travel to New Zealand. This includes the availability and cost of getting a test in other countries, and the context of others winding back testing availability or requirements themselves. In addition, the level of compliance for international arrivals undertaking their post-arrival testing in New Zealand is very high, while the positivity rate is very low at around 2 percent of tested arrivals. This provides us assurance there’s a very small number of cases entering New Zealand and that we have the tools in place to detect if a change occurs.

💬 Shanan Halbert: What other protections remain at the border?

💬 Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: While we are removing the need for a pre-departure test, we are keeping in place a robust set of surveillance measures to detect any possible new variants of COVID-19. This includes retaining the requirement for self-tests on day 0/1 and day 5/6, and a follow up PCR test if either of the rapid antigen tests turn up positive. These PCR samples will continue to be sequenced, which gives the Government the best possible indication of variants arriving in New Zealand.