Oral Questions

1. to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by the Prime Minister’s statement that “We need to be aspirational, and have a plan, but we also need to be disciplined and prioritise”, and is he satisfied that the Government is delivering good outcomes for taxpayer money?

I do stand by the Prime Minister’s statement, particularly where she went on to say, “Not all our commitments will be met in this budget. The past three years have demonstrated the benefits of careful management and targeted investment. Our strong position means we have an opportunity over time to bring down debt and put the Government’s books on a path to surplus, but our balanced approach will also see tens of billions of dollars opened up for investment into infrastructure over the coming decade so we don’t leave the next generation with debt of another kind.” In answer to the second part of the member’s question, yes, including, for example, unemployment at its lowest levels since when the household labour force survey began, levels of public debt amongst the lowest in the OECD, the fact that we’ve lifted more than 66,000 children out of poverty, that we’ve seen reducing numbers of people on benefits, that we’ve seen 190,000 people go in to free apprenticeships and trade training, and many more things. Things are tough for many households and businesses at this time and the Government is stepping up to support them.

💬 Nicola Willis: Was it the Government’s aspirational plan to oversee an explosion in the number of New Zealanders being forced to live in emergency motels with a cumulative spend of $1 billion since his Government came to power?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government’s aspiration was to make sure that we didn’t do what the National Party had done and allow children to be brought up in cars. We have made sure that we’ve invested in the largest ever State house building programme, investing in building transitional housing, and making sure we do actually provide support to people.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Bring back Jacinda!

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Of course we want to move to a situation where people have more of their own permanent housing. If only the previous Government had invested in building housing, we might be able to do that now.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I just want to indicate in particular to Mr Simpson that his—he knows, I think, his interjection was out of order, actually on two counts. He’s a pretty experienced member and should know better.

💬 Nicola Willis: Is the Minister aware that this year Kāinga Ora, the Government’s State house builder, has demolished more homes than it has built, and is that a good outcome for taxpayers’ money?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I am aware of is that this Government has added more than 9,000 public housing places, and that stands in distinct contrast to the previous National Government, who sold off State houses in the middle of a housing crisis.

💬 Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that the State house waiting list has grown from fewer than 6,000 people when National was in office to more than 27,000 today on Labour’s watch?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I can confirm was that if the National Party had built housing at the rate that this Government is building housing, we would not have the issue with the State house waiting list that we do. On this side of the House we build State houses, we acquire State houses, we improve State houses, we insulate State houses; on that side of the House, they sell them.

💬 SPEAKER: Before the member asks, I’m just going to warn her that I probably shouldn’t have let her get away with the last part of her last question. She will ask her questions within order. She knows what I mean.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does the Acting Prime Minister consider that the reason there are now more than four times as many people on the State house waiting list could be that rents have risen at a rapid rate under his Government, up $50 a week on average in the past year alone?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I know that the problem that New Zealand’s housing market faces consists of both supply and demand challenges. I also know that this Government has been addressing those on the demand side with a ban on foreign buyers, on removing interest deductibility, on extending the brightline test, and, on the supply side, on building more houses. We have acknowledged that New Zealand has a housing crisis; the previous Government refused to acknowledge that, and that’s how we’ve ended up where we are.

💬 Nicola Willis: What good is it in acknowledging a housing crisis if the result is that last night, 4,500 children were put to bed in an emergency motel room?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On that member’s party’s watch, those children were going to bed in cars. On this side of the House, we have made sure that they are warm and dry. Of course we want them to be in more permanent and stable housing. That’s why we are building more houses than any Government since the 1970s.

💬 Nicola Willis: Is it really credible for the Acting Prime Minister to claim that when National was in Government, 4,500 children were sleeping in cars, or is it in fact the case that the Acting Prime Minister is trying to deflect from the most colossal failure of public policy ever seen by a New Zealand Government?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I am saying to this House and to New Zealand is that they have a Government that is building more houses than any Government since the 1970s. Houses aren’t built overnight, and the member should know that being part of the party that sold off State houses does not put her in a position to lecture the Government about what needs to be done in social housing. We are getting on with the job of undoing the damage done by her Government.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does the Acting Prime Minister regret lecturing New Zealanders about KiwiBuild and how it would deliver 100,000 homes to solve the housing crisis when, in fact, only 1,300 have been built?

No—unless the member can show me evidence that the Acting Prime Minister did that. Further supplementary?

💬 Nicola Willis: I won’t take a further supplementary. [Interruption]

I’ll remind the member that’s what got Mr Seymour in trouble yesterday.

Question No. 2—Finance

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

Statistics New Zealand recently released the food price index, which did report that food prices were up 6.4 percent on the previous month. In the face of these rising prices, the Government has intervened directly in order to make sure that we have greater competition in the supermarket sector, which will flow through to better outcomes at the checkout. Parliament last night passed legislation stopping major supermarkets from blocking their competitors’ access to land to set up new stores. Along with this action, my colleague the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs has noted that we will shortly be consulting on the mandatory code of conduct for supermarkets and already have a unit pricing scheme out for feedback, and we have already committed to making sure that we open up the wholesale market. The Government is acting directly to help bring the prices that New Zealanders pay at the supermarket down.

💬 Ingrid Leary: What other reports has he seen on the economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s weekly fuel price monitoring report shows that prices remain high, with average prices for 91 with a discount being $3.05. Everyone across the House knows that the supply chain constraints around the world and the Russian invasion of Ukraine have pushed up the price of oil. That is why we moved quickly to help ease the pressure at the pump for New Zealanders by reducing fuel excise duty by 25c a litre, cutting road-user charges by an equivalent amount, and halving public transport fares. [Interruption] They don’t like action to actually support people as opposed to opposing every single thing that this Government has done. They cry foul, but they never support low and middle income earners. I’m proud of the action this Government has taken to do that.

💬 Ingrid Leary: What reports has he seen on rising prices that affect the New Zealand economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Higher prices of fuel and supply chain disruptions do flow through to the rising prices of goods and services, as highlighted in the previous two reports I’ve mentioned. The Government is acutely aware of the cost of living pressure on New Zealanders, especially those on low and middle incomes. That’s why, at the May Budget, we announced the temporary cost of living payment for people earning less than $70,000, and we have permanently halved the cost of public transport for low-income New Zealanders. On this side of the House, we are taking action to support low and middle income New Zealanders rather than focusing on giving tax cuts to the wealthiest New Zealanders.

Question No. 3—Public Service

3. to the Minister for the Public Service: Does he stand by the statements of Acting Public Service Minister Hon Grant Robertson that “I’m confident that the public service is delivering to New Zealanders” and “We’ll always make sure that what we spend is careful”?

Yes, in the context in which the statement was made.

💬 Simeon Brown: Has he seen reports that the number of comms staff across the Public Service has increased by 46 percent, from 339 in 2017 to 497 in 2021, and, if so, is he convinced that spending an extra 64 percent on comms staff is a good use of taxpayers’ money?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I have seen that. I think it’s important to note what we’re talking about when we’re talking about comms staff. The number of media-related comms staff—i.e., press secretaries and so on—has remained the same. The additional comms staff that are being employed are to do things like provide information to the public, make sure website information is available in a publicly accessible form, and respond to queries from members of the public.

💬 Simeon Brown: Why has the number of comms staff at the Public Service Commission, which is a department he is the Minister for, almost tripled from six in 2017 to 15 in 2021, and is this an example of careful Government expenditure?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think I was the Minister of Education when that member was at school, and we didn’t do a good thing on maths, did we?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The issue there is primarily one of coding. If we look at what those staff members do, they’re not responding to media queries; they’re doing other activities that are classified as communications related.

💬 Simeon Brown: How can he say that the Public Service is careful in its spending when the Public Service Commission, which he is responsible for, has almost three times as many comms staff and more than doubled its spend on consultants since he came to office?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I suspect the member didn’t hear my answer to the last question, but I addressed that in my last answer.

💬 Rachel Boyack: What growth, if any, has there been in permanent employees in the Public Service in the last year, and what have been the main contributors to that growth?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I appreciate there is a lot of public interest in this. The growth in Public Service employees last year, up to the end of June, was 3,950, or a 6.9 percent increase. Half of that growth—around 50 percent—was directly attributable to the Government’s response to COVID-19. That included people running managed isolation and quarantine facilities, rolling out the vaccination programme, supporting contact tracing, managing the border, and providing welfare assistance to people and businesses affected by the economic impact of COVID-19. About 40 percent of the growth was to support the Government’s work programme, including improving front-line services and help to individuals, families, and businesses; implementing the Government’s reform agenda, including climate change, Resource Management Act reform, and mental health service roll-out; and investing in the delivery of services such as more support for schools and teachers, more protection for workers and consumers and businesses.

💬 Simeon Brown: Is he aware that the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) has more than doubled its comms staff, from 32 in 2017 to 88 in 2021, and, if so, with examples like this, is the Government’s priority to employ spin-doctors over front-line doctors in our hospitals?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Again, I think the member should listen to the previous answer I gave. This isn’t about spin-doctors; this about people who are engaging with members of the public. NZTA’s very comprehensive work programme does involve engaging members of the public who are affected by that work.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: What would the Minister’s response be if, as Public Service Minister, it was brought to his attention that a pay system was introduced that had 90 percent of public school teachers mis-paid for two years, and $45 million had to be spent to fix the system?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think that’s exactly the sort of example that we want to avoid, where penny-pinching ultimately leads to services that don’t actually deliver for New Zealanders, and cost a lot more in the long run, and Novopay is a really good example of what we get when we end up with a National Government trying to cut corners.

The answer to the member’s question was Anne Tolley.

Question No. 4—Children

4. to the Minister for Children: Mānawatia a Matariki, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi o te wā Pipiri. How is the Government continuing to transform Oranga Tamariki?

For too long, Oranga Tamariki has put itself at the centre of their work. Hapū, iwi, and communities know what’s best for their children, and need to be empowered to lead decisions locally. Work is under way so that iwi and communities are empowered to lead and deliver services to enhance their effectiveness, efficiency, and cultural relevance for the tamariki and whānau they support.

💬 Arena Williams: How does this new direction support our tamariki?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, it’s simple. We are investing $23 million to enable locally led initiatives to be delivered by iwi, communities, and partners. This will improve iwi and community collaboration and give these groups control of the services provided. This investment will empower communities and Māori to help children and their families in a way that suits them and not just Wellington.

💬 Arena Williams: What is an example of a locally led partnership?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Take the Whānau as First Navigators programme. This partnership between Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and Oranga Tamariki was first signed in 2018. Its uniquely for Māori, by Māori approach has benefited tamariki and whānau in the Ngāi Tahu takiwā. Between 2018 and 2021, the number of Ngāi Tahu tamariki in Oranga Tamariki’s care dropped by almost 30 percent. That is why I was proud to announce a further $25 million of funding last year to continue this important work. This is an example of Oranga Tamariki being an enabler, not a dictator.

💬 Arena Williams: What other work is under way in refreshing Oranga Tamariki?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Last year, this Government accepted all of the recommendations of the ministerial advisory board appointed to provide advice on how to fix the child care and protection system. Oranga Tamariki created its future direction plan, an internal blueprint aligned to the themes of the recommendations, to ensure Oranga Tamariki stays focused on this fundamental shift. The future direction plan remains a central focus for Oranga Tamariki in the work it does. A plan has been put in place, and alongside the members of my ministerial advisory board and the leadership of Oranga Tamariki we are already changing the system.

Question No. 5—Transport

5. to the Minister of Transport: How many people drive through the Mt Victoria tunnel per day, and how many does he project will walk and cycle through if the Government bans cars from the tunnel, as he announced this morning?

I reject the premise in the member’s questions; the question that we’ve banned cars from Mount Victoria. In fact, the announcement that we’ve made on the preferred mode and route for mass rapid transit in Wellington today provides for a new Mount Victoria tunnel with four lanes; two for cars and two for public transport. This means that there is exactly the same capacity as currently provided for cars, which enables approximately 50,000 to 55,000 vehicles per day. The difference is that we’re also enabling high quality bus rapid transit to give Wellingtonians real transport choices and faster journey times.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. This was a question accepted on notice about two things: how many cars currently drive through the tunnel, and how many people would walk or cycle through it if—and this is accepted on notice from a press release from the Government on the Beehive website this morning.

💬 SPEAKER: OK.

💬 David Seymour: He didn’t address either leg of the question you accepted.

💬 SPEAKER: OK. I think the member does have a point. He especially has a point as to the first part of the question, which is not hypothetical; it’s a factual matter, which one would expect to be involved in the preparation. The member might give an answer which says he doesn’t have that information, or that wasn’t available over that time, but the—

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Speaking to the point of order, I said between 50,000 and 55,000 vehicles per day in my answer.

💬 SPEAKER: Right. I missed it, as did David Seymour.

💬 Simon Court: Is the Minister aware of Treasury advice stating 80,000 additional people will be living in Wellington by 2050; and if he is aware, why is he planning to close off a vital route which, as he pointed out, serves 55,000 vehicle trips per day, instead of adding to it?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Following question time, I’m very happy to arrange a session to take the member through the Let’s Get Wellington Moving proposals that have been announced this morning, where I can reconfirm to him again that the same vehicular capacity through Mount Victoria will apply, but that additional capacity will be created through mass rapid transit which will move thousands of people per day, and additional capacity will be created for safe walking and cycling. More people will be able to move through Mount Victoria through more transport choices under the plans that we have announced today.

💬 Simon Court: What does the Minister have to say to the 70 percent of people who responded to Let’s Get Wellington Moving surveys who wanted to see, from their website, “two lanes for general traffic in each direction”, because they believe this would futureproof the investment and support population growth and intensification; and are these people wrong, Minister?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: What I would say is that the overwhelming feedback from public consultation for Let’s Get Wellington Moving is that people supported our objectives of achieving mode shift, which we do by providing more transport choices to people in Wellington. The feedback from the Let’s Get Wellington Moving consultation was overwhelmingly positive, and by and large supported option 1, which is the preferred option of the Government, as announced today.

💬 Simon Court: Has the Minister done the maths, which shows that by building four new lanes, taking two away for public transport, taking two away from closing the Mount Victoria tunnel, that adds zero extra lanes for general traffic for $7.4 billion; and, if so, is this morning’s announcement simply proof of what the independent reviewer concluded, that Let’s Get Wellington Moving is at risk of failing to deliver?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Complex maths! You may need tutoring.

💬 Hon Peeni Henare: Certainly not from a woodwork teacher.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order. Mr Henare, I think—

💬 Hon Peeni Henare: Sorry, sir.

💬 SPEAKER: There’s been one or two on your own side who haven’t had brilliant maths in the last couple of weeks.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: You can do all that on one hand, Gerry.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Come on. Come on, let’s—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: We’ll find out.

💬 SPEAKER: I’ll be imploring people to take their shoes off to count properly soon.

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Look, I would make two comments in response to the member’s question. The first is just to reiterate—for about the third time—that more capacity for people to travel around Wellington is created through the Let’s Get Wellington Moving plan announced this morning though the provision of mass rapid transit through Mount Victoria, and also through the significant changes that are created around the Basin Reserve, which will also significantly improve the urban environment.

But secondly, and most substantially, it is important to note that our Government is a Government which believes that we will not solve the transport problems of our larger cities just by pouring more and more cars into already congested roads. That will simply make the problem worse. All of the most successful, productive, and innovative cities around the world have high-quality rapid public transport systems. That is what we will finally deliver for Wellington after 50 years of this issue being kicked down the road.

💬 Simeon Brown: How can Wellingtonians believe that he can deliver rapid transit for Wellington when Aucklanders have been waiting almost five years for Auckland Light Rail to Mount Roskill by 2021—last year?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I certainly think that Wellingtonians will have more confidence in this Government to deliver that than the other side of the House, given that their former leader called Wellington a “dying city”.

💬 Simon Court: Will the Minister ensure that the Mount Victoria tunnel pedestrian and cycling conversion is easily removable so that when ACT is part of a future Government after 2024, we can turn it back to a car driving—

💬 SPEAKER: All right. All right.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: The member’s allowed to take his mask off so we can hear him clearly.

💬 David Seymour: I know you like to see me. The question was: will this design allow future conversion? Now, that is a matter of public interest. I accept the second leg of the question may not have been necessary, but surely the Minister can answer that. People want to know.

💬 SPEAKER: The second part of the question was out of order, and therefore the question was out of order.

💬 David Seymour: Well, can he answer the first part?

💬 SPEAKER: No. Well, he can but he mayn’t.

Question No. 6—Conservation

6. to the Minister of Conservation: How has Jobs for Nature supported the restoration of Rotorua lakes?

Jobs for Nature funding has enabled jobs; environmental improvements; and connection of community, hapū, and iwi to the Rotorua lakes. Jobs for Nature has invested $2.5 million into the Mauri Tu Mauri Ora programme, led by Te Arawa Lakes Trust. Since making the investment, the project has restored wetlands; habitat for taonga species, including kōura, inanga, and tuna; increased bird life through pest control; improved fresh water quality; and restored the mauri of ecosystems across the lakes. The programme also has a focus on investing in people and has been achieving five year goals in as little as six months.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: What specific achievements have been made by this project to date?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I’m advised that this project has already seen work at over 40 sites throughout the Te Arawa rohe, the production of 29,000 plans, the treatment of 1,000 hectares for weeds, and the warranting of four new staff under the Biosecurity Act.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: How is this project developing the people working on it?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Te Arawa Lakes Trust have noted the growth of individuals through Jobs for Nature experience, such as gaining qualifications, and that this is a wider benefit for the growth of their community. Staff have been trained to be skilled in other employment to deliver further conservation projects. This includes undertaking pest animal control, working as maritime compliance officers, and training to be scientific divers. Staff development and training in this field has made them readily employable to environmental organisations. Staff have obtained qualifications such as the certificate in controlled substance handling, registered chemical applicators, skipper certificates, and biosecurity compliance officer training.

Question No. 7—Transport

7. to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by his statement, “The emissions reduction plan is Government policy and something that we give great priority to. We will be considering that as we consider the best options to take mass rapid transit in Wellington forward”?

Yes, I do stand by that statement that I made in the House last week, and I’m very pleased that in the announcement that we have made this morning about moving mass rapid transport forward, the Government’s preferred option is the one which supports the highest degree of benefits for mode shift as compared to the other options. It offers significant benefits for Wellingtonians in terms of reduced travel times and improved urban environment but also in terms of reducing emissions, which we know is a critical task.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that the life cycle of carbon analysis published by Let’s Get Wellington Moving, on page 10, shows that the options the Government is progressing with have more than doubled the embedded emissions, and lower yearly carbon reduction compared to option iv?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I can confirm that the embedded emissions involved in the construction of option i are higher than for option iv, noting that any significant construction project in transport will have significant embedded emissions. But what I also note is that clearly in the Government’s announcement we confirmed that option i will be strongly linked with a higher model of urban intensification, which, when taken together, will offer significant carbon reductions and enable us to reach a point of carbon neutrality and then savings by the mid-2030s.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is he denying the evidence provided in the urban development analysis published by Let’s Get Wellington Moving, which, on page 23, says option iv would generate similar opportunity for growth and new residential development as option i?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No, that information is correct when comparing the base cases for urban intensification across the models, whereas—as I confirmed in my previous answer—we will be working hard to achieve a higher level of urban intensification for option i, which will deliver significantly greater carbon savings.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: How does he explain how option i would reduce emissions to a greater extent with greater urban development when the carbon life-cycle analysis shows that there is greater carbon reduction on a year-to-year basis from option iv, with or without the maximum urban development scenario?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Because that is the advice that I have received from officials who have considered these matters. I note that option i, even without the increased housing intensification, offers monetised benefits that are $51 million higher for public transport, $20 million for private vehicles, and $42 million higher for active transport, demonstrating that there is more mode shift achieved under option i, and that is just at the base case. It is significantly higher with the higher level of urban intensification that we wish to achieve, and I’m happy to share that information with the member.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he deny that if that $2.2 billion that is being spent on new, high-carbon tunnels was spent on more transformational and climate-friendly transport, it would get greater mode shift and greater carbon benefits for the total amount of money spent?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No, I don’t accept that proposition. The various options that were put out for consultation under the Let’s Get Wellington Moving consultation options have to work in the round because they are interdependent on different parts, and I do note that aspects of the tunnels that the member refers to do confer benefits for people using public transport, walking, and cycling, and, in particular, the improvements that we will make around the Basin Reserve will create a significantly improved environment for users of those services.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: How can he guarantee that in the future, two of the four road lanes in the new Mount Victoria tunnel will be reserved for public transport when they could easily be opened to general traffic, thereby eliminating any benefits for public transport users?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Government simply has to get on and make decisions in the best interests of Wellington, according to the best plan. It is my hope that political leaders across central government and local government will support us in getting on with the job of delivering better public transport—

💬 Nicola Willis: It won’t happen.

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: —for the people of Wellington, and I note the comments from the member opposite saying it won’t happen. That’s exactly the attitude that we had under nine years of the National Government, which failed to invest in a better public transport system for Wellington. We are getting on with it, and I think the fact that the member has that point of view explains her successive electoral failures in this city.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Given that answer, will his Government commit to completing light rail as soon as possible and improving walking, cycling, and bus journeys across Wellington before digging for two new, high-carbon tunnels?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: In the first instance, I do just reflect back on my comments, which note that any form of significant construction involves a degree of embedded carbon across any of the options that we are looking at. The key point is what we then enable by way of carbon reduction in the long run, and our view is that option i, particularly with the intensified housing model, provides that. But what I will say to the member is that we are ambitious to make progress as soon as possible and we have engaged with officials to ask them to look at accelerated options, including the phasing of options, to bring forward the benefits of light rail within the programme.

Question No. 8—Internal Affairs

8. to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Why did she accept the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Statement of Performance Expectations for 2022/23, in which the FENZ board indicated budgeted revenue of $661 million?

on behalf of the Minister of Internal Affairs: On behalf of the Minister of Internal Affairs, because the document met the statutory criteria for a Crown entity.

💬 Todd Muller: Is she satisfied that despite a $220 million higher operational spend than expected when Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) was created, fire stations were closed last weekend and fire engines not crewed?

Like all of the workforce, Fire and Emergency are experiencing disruption due to COVID-19 and due to other winter illness, including influenza. I am confident, as Minister, that the fire service is managing that in the most appropriate way. Where a fire crew is under-crewed because of workforce disruption, they have an ability to move crews around and respond accordingly, as they do, for example, when a fire station is responding to multiple different incidents.

💬 Todd Muller: Why does she accept that despite the $661 million budget, life insurance and income protection is available to all non-uniformed staff but specifically excludes uniformed front-line staff?

I think if the member wanted to ask a question specifically about that, he should have done so rather than asking a question about the fire service’s revenue and statement of performance expectations.

💬 Todd Muller: What is her response to the thousands of firefighters who are telling me they look at this Government and think, “Where on earth has all the money gone, because it ain’t reached me?”

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m just going to invite the member to consider that question as to whether it is a matter of fact—the assertion that he made right at the beginning of it. If the member says that it’s absolutely accurate, I’m happy for the member to answer it.

💬 TODD MULLER: Yes.

The member is well aware that there is bargaining ongoing at the moment, and as Minister it would be inappropriate to get involved in that.

💬 Todd Muller: What is her response to firefighters sharing their frustrations with me that FENZ is employing six full-time staff to trawl social media and spot negative comments about FENZ by firefighters, while at the same time their calls for more front-line staff are met with silence?

I reject the premise of the member’s question, and I also repeat the previous answer that I gave, which is that it is inappropriate for a Minister to be making public comment on bargaining that is under way.

💬 Jan Logie: Is the Minister aware that when yesterday in the House she said no qualified firefighters are on less than the living wage, there are two ranks below qualified firefighter that are on less than the living wage?

The Minister stands by her statement yesterday.

Question No. 9—Tourism

9. to the Minister of Tourism: What announcements has he made on tourism infrastructure supporting Matariki?

Last Friday, on our first Matariki public holiday, myself, with the Associate Minister of Tourism, Hon Peeni Henare, announced the sixth round of recipients for the Tourism Infrastructure Fund. This fund has played a key role in supporting infrastructure that many districts can’t afford by themselves. This round was particularly special as it was the first time that funding criteria included an explicit mention of infrastructure to support the delivery and management of Matariki events. Round six of the fund invests over $15 million into 62 projects across 34 councils and community organisations around the country to help address tourism infrastructure needs, including future Matariki celebrations.

💬 Jamie Strange: What are some of the funded projects that will help communities celebrate Matariki?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: From star-gazing platforms to event infrastructure and facility upgrades, round six of the Tourism Infrastructure Fund will help get the community and visitors engaged in our newest public holiday. To highlight a couple of their successful projects, at beautiful Waihī Beach, locals and visitors can look forward to new star-gazing platforms, which will link together with a popular walking trail. The platforms will include a Matariki star compass and cultural information about the site. In Rotorua, the Matariki on the Marae project will fund upgrades to marae facilities to incorporate Matariki infrastructure. This includes viewing platforms, cultural signage, enhanced walkways, public toilets, and a Matariki-inspired entranceway to the marae complex. Other district councils will also receive funds for Matariki events, which will help the communities learn more about New Zealand’s cultural history.

💬 Jamie Strange: How has the Tourism Infrastructure Fund supported communities in the past?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: Tourism is hugely important to our economy. As we open back up to the world, it is essential that our tourism infrastructure meets the high expectation of visitors. To date, the fund has supported more than 200 projects, totalling over $90 million, which have improved the quality of tourism infrastructure for residents and visitors alike. The Tourism Infrastructure Fund has supported notable projects around the country, including coastal walkways, essential waste-water treatment plants, park and ride facilities, and high-quality public toilets. Our investments are proof of our commitment to stand beside local communities to co-fund important tourism infrastructure, which will ensure we protect and enhance our strong global reputation.

Question No. 10—Justice

10. to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by her statement that she will bring a “victim-centric” approach to her job; and if so, will she commit to introducing tougher penalties for offenders who repeatedly victimise New Zealanders?

In response to the first part of the question, yes. In response to the second part of the question, the Government is committed to taking an evidence-based approach to keeping our communities safe, breaking the cycle of offending, and tackling the root causes of crime.

💬 Nicole McKee: What work will she ask the Ministry of Justice to do, if any, considering the news of the number of burglaries increased to 289,000 over the last year, as evidenced this morning?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: This morning, the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey was released. It’s the fourth of its type and it showed a range of interesting outcomes. The first is that crime trends are relatively stabilised. The second is that those that are victims of crime, there are some substantive issues there. First of all, that 2 percent of all adults experiencing crime experienced 39 percent of the total crime rates against all victims. We know that those that are victims of crimes are those that are already most disproportionately impacted by a range of factors. Those with disabilities are impacted 55 percent more than others, those that form part of our queer community, those that are Māori all form a substantial part of our victims. So to the member’s question, “What will we be doing?”, we have taken an approach that will enable, first of all, through our Budget 2023, a joined-up approach across the justice sector. Over $40 million has been invested into ensuring that there is an all-of-Government approach to the way that we are responding to those victims of crime. Second is that we are making sure that we engage victims at the outset of the process. There are a range of different measures in place, and I think it’s clear that both sides of this House—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think it’s fair to say that the member’s had a fair go.

💬 Nicole McKee: Is she concerned that the number of repeat burglaries increased over the last year; and will she be introducing new policies to target criminals who repeatedly commit burglaries?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: One of the highlights of the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey, as just stated in this House, was that crime rates overall are relatively stable and have been over the last few years. With respect to burglary in particular, we’re taking it in terms of the focus on victims. Our focus is on ensuring that we are supporting those victims at the outset when a crime is done against them, and we’re taking an all-of-Government approach.

💬 Nicole McKee: Will she commit to considering ACT’s policy of sentencing burglars to three years in prison without parole if they are convicted of a burglary for a third time?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: No.

💬 Nicole McKee: What work has she asked the Ministry of Justice to do, if any, to support the victims of crime who are owed more than $35 million in unpaid reparations, since I asked her about it last week?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I thank the member again for her question, because this is an area that I am quite concerned about. Reparations getting to victims—there have been multiple challenges over many, many years. One of the things that we have established there is to ensure that victims receive their reparations in a more coordinated approach. To date, in the last year, we’ve seen over $5 million go directly to victims. We’ve got $6 million that are on an automatic payment scheme, which is an uplift from previous years. And we’ll continue to monitor that progress.

💬 Nicole McKee: Point of order. My question was to the Minister about what work she’s done in the last week on the issue about the $35 million of unpaid reparation.

💬 SPEAKER: And I think she started off by saying she’s been focusing quite a lot on that issue.

Question No. 11—Justice

11. to the Minister of Justice: Does she have confidence victims of crime are receiving adequate support with timely access to justice; if not, why not?

Victims, as I’ve said in this House, are a priority for our Government, which is why I’m pleased that Budget 2022 made long-overdue investments both for victims and for access to justice, including $41.5 million to cover the costs of existing demand for legal-aid services, $45.7 million across the justice sector towards improving outcomes for victims of crime, $12.3 million for assistance grants to victims of crime, providing for an additional 7,200 financial grants per year, and $148.7 million to address core issues limiting access to legal aid by raising income eligibility thresholds, debt-repayment thresholds, civil and family eligibility thresholds, removing the legal-aid user charge, and increasing the hourly rate paid to legal-aid providers.

💬 Chris Penk: Why should victims of crime take comfort from the answer that the Minister has just given regarding additional spending when the $3 million fund for victims of serious crime, as announced in Budget 2021, has supported zero victims after having been open for five months?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The core focus for this year’s Budget, in particular, has been to make sure that services are provided earlier. And that, indeed, has been a direction that our Government has requested, which is why you’ve seen the bolstering of fiscal support for victims of crime, in particular through the uplift of finances available to those that are eligible for grants through that $12 million made available through Budget 2022.

💬 Chris Penk: Is availability of funds not the issue when it has been the case that according to Budget documents, victims have been “deliberately excluded” from accessing Government support to which they are entitled during a time in which violent crime has increased by 21 percent over four years?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: To reiterate the statements I have made in this House, there have been multiple years of under-investment into victims of crime, but to quote the Chief Victims Advisor, Dr Kim McGregor, described Budget 2022 as a “game-changer” for victims, and in particular, the focus of this Government is “to join up the siloed parts of the justice system.” It’s what the Victims Advisor has been calling on, she says, “for several years”—“There hasn’t been a victims-focused team with a view across the entire system—police, courts, corrections, parole board—from a victim’s perspective.” So she says, the Chief Advisor that the National Government appointed in 2015, that this is “hugely significant”—“a game-changer for … victims of crime”.

💬 Chris Penk: Do the years of significant under-investment to which the Minister’s just referred include the last 4½ years?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Yes, they do. There has been for multiple years of Government—yeah, that’s absolutely right, and I don’t think that anyone could decry that. For years and years, there has been an under-investment into the way that the right services in a joined-up approach across Government has been able to be provided to our victims, and that is why there were two major priorities through the justice Budget cluster this year. The first is access to justice, and the second was victims and focusing on their needs.

💬 Chris Penk: What is her response to victims of violent crimes who have stated in relation to the Government’s proposed repeal of the three-strikes law, “We believe the proposed changes are misconceived, misguided, and certain to create more members of the club to which we all belong, the club which no one wants to join.”?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: First of all, to any victim of crime we would say that we want to ensure that they have all of the right support available to them. Secondly, with respect to three strikes, we heard from many victims through the select committee process about their experiences, of which many were absolutely horrific. The thing about the three-strikes law, however, is that this doesn’t diminish the ability of any judicial officer to be able to provide the minimum or the maximum penalties, and it’s restoring the discretion of the judicial officer to exercise their duties and functions. Just this year, we have seen the exercise of a judicial officer imposing the maximum penalty—life sentence without parole—for an individual that hasn’t met the three-strikes threshold. We do not have any intention of providing any kind of retrospectivity when it comes to those that have suffered at the hands of crime and criminals, but we are reinstating the integrity of our judicial branch of Government so that they exercise their discretion within the bands of the Sentencing Act.

💬 Chris Penk: Are the Government’s reported new justice priorities of curbing violent crime and looking after victims an admission that the Government has failed to address the 21 percent increase in violent crime under its watch?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I refute the proposition of that question. This isn’t a new priority; it’s one that’s ongoing for this side of the House.

💬 Chris Penk: Supplementary question.

No, no. The member has used all his supplementaries.

Question No. 12—Transport

12. to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about the future of mass rapid transit in Wellington?

Today, the Minister of Finance and I announced that the Government is progressing a preferred option for mass rapid transit in Wellington which includes light rail from Wellington station to Island Bay; a new tunnel through Mount Victoria for public transport, walking, and cycling; an upgrade to the Basin Reserve area so it’s no longer the country’s biggest and most congested roundabout. The preferred option will reduce travel times, improve air quality, enable more housing, and reduce emissions. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to shape Wellington’s future and we believe, on this side of the House, that it’s time to get on with it. That’s what we’re doing.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What other work is the Government doing to build a linked-up transport network in Wellington?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Our capital does need a linked-up rapid transit network that will serve Wellingtonians now and into the future, making it faster to move through the city, connecting communities, creating better access to businesses, and reducing congestion. Today’s decision provides certainty to our partners at Greater Wellington and Wellington City and to Wellington residents about this important part of Let’s Get Wellington Moving. It builds on work under way within the broader programme, improving work to transform the “golden mile”, to improve safety and urban attractiveness on the Thorndon Quay and Hutt Road, and also further work on pedestrian improvements around the city and the city streets programme, of which work is under way on all of those projects at the moment.

💬 Ginny Andersen: How does today’s announcement about mass rapid transport in Wellington align with the Government’s transport infrastructure priorities?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Our support for mass rapid transit in both Auckland and Wellington demonstrates our commitment to investing in the core transport infrastructure in our biggest city, to enable them to grow now and in the decades to come. As we continue to invest in core infrastructure like Let’s Get Wellington Moving, Auckland light rail, the alternative Waitematā Harbour crossing, and, in the near future, Christchurch mass rapid transit, we’re plugging an infrastructure deficit that’s built up for decades and helping to support a high wage, high productivity, low emissions economy for years to come.