Oral Questions

1. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she think that families in receipt of a benefit are facing cost of living pressures currently, exacerbating poverty?

on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: On behalf of the Minister, we do agree that families on a benefit will be facing—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I just want to check: is the Minister not the Minister? I thought the Minister was the Acting Minister.

No, I’m not the Acting Minister.

💬 SPEAKER: You’re not the Acting Minister?

No.

💬 SPEAKER: Sorry, I thought—

But I’m on behalf of the Minister.

💬 SPEAKER: You’re on behalf of the Acting Minister?

On behalf of the—yeah.

💬 SPEAKER: OK, thank you.

Kia ora. So, on behalf of the Minister, we do agree that families on a benefit will be facing cost of living pressures. Like many families, we knew when we came into Government that people on a benefit were experiencing hardship, which is why we have prioritised them, first, through our Families Package, and then through lifting main benefit rates to historical levels. Alongside this, we have raised the abatement threshold, increased dental grants, and lifted Working for Families tax credits. A report released by Ministry of Social Development (MSD) shows our changes have led to around a 40 percent increase in after-housing cost incomes for those on a main benefit since 2018. We know beneficiaries do it tough, which is why we have prioritised them. We are working with them and changing things, and, hopefully, changing their lives.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is the fact that hardship grants for food are going up a sign that people on a main benefit are unable to meet the cost of living and that benefit increases under her Government haven’t been enough?

So the—Mr Speaker, can I just ask what the question is?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes it’s—oh, I can give it for you, if you like, Willie.

Oh, thanks, Gerry. So is the question—sorry, can I just ask, are you asking are they enough—is that what you’re saying? Cost of living, yeah—because I missed the—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Can I repeat the question?

💬 SPEAKER: Yes.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Thank you. Is the fact that hardship grants for food are going up a sign that people on a main benefit aren’t able to meet the cost of living and that benefit increases under her Government haven’t been enough?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: The answer is “Yes, that’s right.”

No, no, that’s not right, Gerry Brownlee. But, on behalf of the Minister, a report released by MSD on the weekend shows that our changes have led to a 40 percent increase in after-housing costs income for those on a main benefit after inflation. Providing support for those on a benefit goes beyond the welfare system. That’s why we’re addressing these pressures through half-price public transport, free lunches in schools, free period products in schools, and more public housing.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she think it is kind to exclude children living in poverty who are in benefit-receiving households from the cost of living payment?

I’m sorry, look, I just—can you repeat the question? I’m just finding it hard to hear.

💬 SPEAKER: And can I ask while he’s doing it that Mr David Bennett turn his volume down? Thank you.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she think it is kind to exclude children living in poverty who are in benefit-receiving households from the cost of living payment?

I hear the question; I respect the question and the member. It’s not a matter of being kind, because this Government has been more kind than any other Government in the last generation. As a Government, we have made once-in-a-generation increases to incomes for those on a benefit. Our changes have led to around a 40 percent increase in after-housing costs income for those on a main benefit, inflation-adjusted since 2018. Now, as someone—unlike the Opposition—who has worked with many beneficiaries, and I have tried to encourage them—

💬 Hon David Bennett: He’s on fire.

—none of them—many of them wouldn’t know a beneficiary if they fell over one. But the reality is this—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. It was a straightforward question. It may be that some of the inane interjections deserved a response, but I just want to say to the Minister that he is not doing much good by chasing the bait. [Interruption] Right. Bennett—out. Mr Bennett will leave the House.

Hon David Bennett withdrew from the Chamber.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does the Minister expect to see a decrease in the value of hardship grants and debts to the Ministry of Social Development as a result of the recent benefit increases, and, if not—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Right, who was that?

💬 Chris Penk: Sir, we’re just trying to establish the basis on which you kicked out Mr Bennett.

💬 SPEAKER: No, but members don’t need to call out loudly in order to do that while a question is occurring.

💬 Chris Penk: I’m just helping with your directional pathfinding, sir.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that, Mr Speaker, to the extent that somebody did call out, it was probably me, and I was establishing what had actually happened. But I do apologise if it was a bit noisy.

💬 SPEAKER: All right. Well, I’m pretty surprised—

💬 Hon Member: Sorry.

💬 SPEAKER: OK. Well, we’ve got three apologies now, and that’s probably enough. I’m surprised that any inquiry was necessary, given the volume of the interjection—the out-of-order interjection. Ask the question again.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister expect to see a decrease in the value of hardship grants and debt to the Ministry of Social Development as a result of recent benefit increases, and, if not, when will she take action so that benefits cover families’ basic essentials without them needing to take on debt?

In terms of debt, as part of the welfare overhaul, the Government has initiated a cross-Government debt to government work programme which is looking at reducing hardship and preventing debt from occurring. Steps have already been taken as part of the work—for example, increasing access to dental grants so that people don’t go into debt for high-cost dental needs, and changes to legal aid, including removing interest off debt, increased eligibility thresholds, and removing the legal aid user charge. This is an ongoing piece of work.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is it her Government’s preference that families who receive benefits take up more debt with the Ministry of Social Development in order to pay for basics like food, clothing, and rent, rather than get the cost of living payment?

Of course not. We want to work with these families and we are working at the coalface. I want just to reiterate what I was saying earlier, which is that there is a lot of working going on at the community level, and we’re working in tandem with community providers right now, and that’s why I was going on about the beneficiaries. Some of us work at ground level with them and understand the pressures, and the other side of it is that we’re able to move them on into areas and into opportunities that they’ve never had before. This Government has provided more opportunities than most Governments—in fact, all Governments—when you look at the types of programmes we’ve initiated: Mana in Mahi, He Poutama Rangatahi, Māori trade training, and record apprenticeships. There are opportunities there for many of our beneficiaries and I have seen the encouragement that our providers are doing, and we, as Government MPs, are also trying to give them some sort of support and plan going forward, rather than just staying on the benefit.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is it her Government’s goal that people do not need hardship grants in order to meet basic expenses, and, if so, what actions will she take to ensure that people are able to meet all of their basic expenses off their main incomes?

We have provided support for people, as I’ve said earlier, more so than any other Government in recent history. We’ve had a 40 percent increase in after-housing costs in terms of incomes for those on main benefits, inflation-adjusted since 2018. Couples with children are $237 per week better off, which rises to $268 in the winter months. We’ve lifted 66,500 children out of poverty. A lot of this work has been underestimated and criticised by the Opposition. As well as that, opportunities are continually made available for young people in terms of getting off benefits and working in tandem with many of our community providers.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Yes, particularly the Government’s support for New Zealanders during the current volatile and uncertain environment. We’re boosting the incomes of seniors, students, and low-income families, while a million New Zealanders are receiving the winter energy payment. Over 1.3 million New Zealanders have received the first cost of living payments this week to support New Zealanders with the increased costs they are facing. This builds on our cut to fuel excise duty and half-price public transport until January 2023. New Zealand is in a strong position to support households and businesses. Unemployment is low, exports are growing, and Government debt is substantially below most other nations. There is no single or easy solution, but we will continue to provide support to New Zealanders in these challenging times.

💬 Nicola Willis: Why did the Government claim 2.1 million people would receive the cost of living payment when only 1.3 million have reportedly received it—a large number of whom live overseas?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: That’s because yesterday was day one of the scheme.

💬 Nicola Willis: How much taxpayer money has the Government used to make cost of living payments to people living overseas?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We’re not quite sure. The fact of the matter is—

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: —at this stage—there are 33 New Zealanders over there who don’t like the cost of living payments; there are 1.3 million New Zealanders yesterday who received that, and they’re saying thank you very much to a very considerate and caring Government.

Brooke van Velden: Is it correct that “Before each monthly payment, Inland Revenue will check each individual’s eligibility for the payment.” in regards to the cost of living payment, and, if so, can he guarantee that the IRD will prevent people who are ineligible from receiving the second and third monthly payments?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The short answer is yes, and I see that the Minister of Revenue has a question at question No. 4. The detailed questions, I guess, should really go to him.

💬 Nicola Willis: How many people who’ve spent time in New Zealand on working holiday visas but have since returned home—such as French backpacker Benoit Berton—have received the cost of living payment?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We’re still gathering data—I mean, like I said, this is day two of this scheme. Of course, nothing is perfect—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. I’ll refer the member to Speakers’ ruling 183/3.

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Mr Speaker—

💬 SPEAKER: No, no, the member will—a further supplementary.

💬 Nicola Willis: How many people such as Charlotte Castle, who left New Zealand more than six years ago, have received the cost of living payment?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: When people shift or change address, they normally go to the post office. They let the post office know that they’ve changed it so that the mail can go somewhere else. What we’ve learnt is that when people travel overseas to live overseas, we actually now need to inform Inland Revenue that they’ve also moved overseas. It is a very simple process for them to actually go online and to inform Inland Revenue that they don’t believe they’re eligible, and I recommend and suggest that people do just that.

💬 Nicola Willis: Whose fault is it that New Zealand taxpayer money has ended up in the bank accounts of people living overseas: the Government, for such a poorly designed scheme, or New Zealanders who didn’t change their address with the IRD?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I see that the cost of living payment has triggered the member’s hyperbole reflex. If we take all her hyperbole and we halve it and halve it again, she’ll still be about a mile away from where reality is.

💬 Nicola Willis: Wouldn’t it have been fairer to taxpayers to simply adjust their income tax rates for the cost of living so they can keep more of what they earn, rather than overtaxing them, hiring hundreds of bureaucrats, and then sending millions to London “yo pros” and French backpackers?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We have a cost of living crisis and the Opposition’s solution was to give $2 a week to the people who need it the most, while they give themselves tens of thousands of dollars in tax relief. The other thing that I’ve also found out about the National Party policy is—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! That’s something I think is unlikely the member will ever have responsibility for.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does he agree with Jacinda Ardern, who said in 2017 that “Kids living in cars & motels is not a sign of care”, and can he confirm how many kids are living in cars and motels today?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: In regards to the first part of the question, yes.

💬 Nicola Willis: Is the Acting Prime Minister concerned to learn that 486 families are living in cars, according to latest data—four times the number when Labour gained office—and when will the Government stop blaming National for Labour’s multiple failures to deliver?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: One of the things is that we inherited a problem. There were so many people living in cars under the previous Government that we have had to solve the problem. We have delivered over 10,000 public homes, which is the most building that any Government has done since the 1970s. We’re well aware of the situation, and we’re taking steps to address it.

💬 SPEAKER: Question No. 5, Ginny Andersen.

💬 Ginny Andersen: My question is to the Minister of Police, and it reads: what recent progress has been made—

💬 Hon Member: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: Oh sorry, I apologise. I apologise to the member—it just feels like it’s taken a long time to get here. I missed question No. 3—

💬 Chris Bishop: We’re happy to give it a miss.

💬 SPEAKER: Are members happy to give a question away?

💬 Chris Bishop: No, no.

💬 SPEAKER: No—oh, someone else’s question? The member knows he can’t do that, but he can give his own questions away, and he’s running the risk of doing it.

Question No. 3—Housing

3. to the Minister of Housing: Kia orana, Vaa Tuatua. What progress has the Government made on the delivery of public housing?

Kia orana. This morning, I announced the Government has added more than 10,000 new public homes since 2017—another major milestone in our plan to tackle the national housing crisis. These 10,037 new public homes, including 8,240 new builds, are tangible proof of our commitment to rebuilding the public housing stock after years of neglect. We are restoring the housing safety net with the biggest State housing - building programme since the 1970s. While we celebrate more than 10,000 new public homes today, we know that the job isn’t yet done. We will continue our record investment and delivery in public housing as a priority, in addition to our wide range of other actions to boost housing supply, because we know how crucial adequate housing is for the health, security, and stability of individuals and whānau.

Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki: Which parts of the country have benefited from the Government adding 10,000 new public homes?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We’re adding public homes across the country from Northland to Invercargill. We’ve made significant investment in regional New Zealand as well as Auckland, Wellington, and Canterbury. For example, in the Waikato region, we’ve added 681 more public homes, and on the East Coast we’ve added 331 new homes. Right across the country, people will be noticing many new homes going up, and they may not even realise that it’s public housing under Kāinga Ora. We’re adding public homes in places that have long been without them. For example, down south, we’re adding homes in places that have been waiting for new public homes for decades. In Gore, we’ve delivered the first public home since the mid-1980s, and we will add another 20 public homes to the current stock of 40 by the end of 2024 to replace homes built mainly in the 1940s.

Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki: Why is the Government undertaking the largest State house - building programme since the 1970s?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Because it is so badly needed. Since 2017, we have been rebuilding New Zealand’s public housing stock after years of neglect by the previous Government. While we have delivered 10,037 new public homes in five years, the previous Government’s slash-and-burn attitude to public housing resulted in 1,500 fewer.

💬 SPEAKER: Question No. 5, Ginny Andersen.

💬 Ginny Andersen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Police: what—

💬 Hon Member: Point of order, sir.

💬 SPEAKER: Oh, I apologise. I’m still counting laps from that points race. Question No. 4, Nicola—no. Question No. 4—yeah—Nicola Willis. Sorry. The fact that the member had two questions—that’s what’s got to me, all right? OK. I just can’t count to two today.

Question No. 4—Revenue

4. to the Minister of Revenue: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the number of ineligible people receiving the cost of living payment that “We’re not sure of the exact number, you don’t know what you don’t know”, and what is the analysis, if any, supporting his claim that about 1 percent of the approximately 2.1 million people who received the payment are not eligible for it?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes. Eligibility decisions are based on the best information that Inland Revenue holds. That information is and will always be high quality, but is and will always be out of date at the margins. The vast majority of people getting the payment are hard-working New Zealanders who are entitled to it. We’ve got the balance right, providing a time-limited income boost to help out 2 million Kiwis during a period of heightened cost of living. IRD does not have perfect and up-to-date information in all cases and never will. The alternative would be to have required over 2 million people to apply for it. The cost of administering that would have been much higher than the savings and would have delayed the payment. We also know that the extra hurdle would mean many people who were eligible would not apply. It’s far better than alternatives like tax cuts that would give $2 to the lowest-income earners and tens of thousands of dollars not just to CEOs but to overseas-based landlords. My estimate of 1 percent is based in my confidence that the IRD information is robust and the vast majority of recipients are entitled to the payment.

💬 Nicola Willis: Why did he claim just yesterday that 2.1 million people would be receiving the payment when IRD has confirmed today that only 1.3 million people have received the payment, many of whom live overseas?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I didn’t say that. The member is misrepresenting my statements. Indeed, I have answered many questions—including, I think, in this House—assuring New Zealanders that if they haven’t already filed their tax return and, therefore, don’t meet the eligibility criteria but then later file their tax return for the year ended 31 March 2022, the payments will be backdated. I think in the House last week, I confirmed that those people have until 31 March next year to do that.

Brooke van Velden: Can he guarantee that the IRD will prevent people who are ineligible from receiving the second and third monthly payments?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: What I can assure the House is that the data checks that are carried out by Inland Revenue will be carried out again before every subsequent payment. The quality of the data will continue to improve. I would observe that the Inland Revenue Department is increasingly relying on automated data sets. This has enabled them to vastly reduce the cost of administration of tax services. Staffing numbers are down by close to 2,000 people as a consequence of those automated services. It not only saves Government administration and, therefore, taxpayers many, many hundreds of millions of dollars; it also rewards taxpayers by enabling them to get automated payments and refunds, and the data sets that are relied upon in these automated processes are constantly being improved.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: How many of the estimated 2.1 million people eligible to receive the payment were paid the $116 of the cost of living payment just yesterday?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: As the member opposite has already said, 1.3 million were paid yesterday—as the deputy of the Labour Party has said—on day one of the scheme. We know from feedback that this has assisted with the cost of living, as well as the assistance we’ve given with decreases in taxes and public transport costs. We know it’s sincerely appreciated by the people who have received it, for whom it makes a difference. None of those 1.3 million people would have received anything if an application process had been used. It would take many, many months if you could ever do it. The other estimated 800,000 or so will become eligible after they file their tax return for the year ended 31 March 2022. Those are people such as those who use tax agents or file IR3 returns, rather than have their returns automatically calculated by the computer.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does the Minister agree with Australian Kelly McGuire, a resident in Australia, who received the cost of living payment and says, “The money could make a lot of difference to a lot of families and it just seems a bit wasted imagining how many people like us there might be out there.”?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I think I’ve already addressed that question by making the point that the alternative application-based process rather than relying upon data sets would have cost a lot more money than it saved. Obviously, we continue to strive to improve those data sets.

💬 Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that the Inland Revenue Department recommended against being the delivery agency for the cost of living payment, specifically warning Ministers that the information it holds may not be up to date, meaning some people who should receive the payment might not, and, conversely, some people will receive the payment who should not have?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, I can confirm that, and that’s been obvious from the papers that have been released and questions that we’ve answered previously. It’s also true that the Inland Revenue Department and the Treasury both recommended against tax cuts, which would have been inflationary, hard to deliver, and would have increased the Government deficit.

💬 Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm he has no idea how much taxpayer money has gone into the bank accounts of people living overseas, he has no idea how many eligible New Zealanders have missed out on the payment—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member’s had two questions.

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I can confirm that the data sets relied upon by the Inland Revenue are very, very good—probably amongst the best in the world—but they are not perfect. We continually improve them, and the alternative would be to waste more money on administration on an application process that would’ve prevented the 1.3 million people who received a cost of living payment from receiving it yesterday.

Brooke van Velden: Has the Government sought or received any advice about extending the cost of living payment beyond October, and, if not, will he rule it out?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I’ve received no such advice, but have no current work under way to extend it, so I wouldn’t want to set the hares running by implying that I was.

Brooke van Velden: Is it the Government’s position that the cost of living payment is not inflationary because it is “time-limited”, or is it the Government’s position that it is refusing to rule out extending the cost of living payment beyond October?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I haven’t refused to rule out the extension beyond the end of October. As I’ve previously explained, we haven’t sought advice; we’re not planning to extend that payment. In respect of the inflation point, government is a complex thing, and with the inflation around out-turn from the COVID pandemic around the world, this Government believes that it is appropriate to assist people with temporary support through the likes of the excise duty, the increased subsidies for public transport, and this time-limited cost of living payment. That is less inflationary than longer-term tax cuts.

Brooke van Velden: Is it acceptable that a young person who lives in a household that earns half a million dollars a year receives the cost of living payment and spends the money on an expensive new handbag?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Oh well, that’s a purely hypothetical question. The eligibility criteria are that if the person earned less than $70,000 in the year ended 31 March 2022 and they weren’t in receipt of the winter energy payment, then they are entitled to it. One of the criticisms that we often hear from the Opposition is that the Government’s measures apply only to people in receipt of Government support, rather than to middle-income people who are also facing cost of living pressures. This payment responds to that; how people apply it is for them.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Sir, it’s not the world’s biggest thing, it’s just to point out that you’ve traditionally had a rule that the primary question gets two supplementaries afterwards—

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, and I’ll point out that that’s generally what I do, and there’s no requirement for me to do it. So the member is being disorderly again.

Question No. 5—Police

5. to the Minister of Police: What recent progress has been made on the implementation of firearms prohibition orders in New Zealand?

Good news: I am advised that the bill has been reported back to the House. It was reported back last Friday, and I thank the Justice Committee for reporting the bill back several weeks early. I intend to take a proposal to the Business Committee this afternoon that will see us agreeing on a timetable to have the bill passed into law by the end of next week. This is another step in the Government’s response to criminal behaviour, and it reflects our ongoing goal to ensure that police have the right tools they need to keep our community safe.

💬 Ginny Andersen: What is the purpose of the orders, and how will they help to reduce gun harm in our communities?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Firearms prohibition orders will help to further reduce firearms violence in our communities by prohibiting high-risk offenders from accessing, being around, or using firearms or ammunition. The bill gives the court the power to impose an order lasting 10 years, and it makes it a further criminal offence to breach the conditions of the order. I am concerned about the potential for further gun violence in our communities, and this bill targets those people with a history of serious violent offending and gun crimes, barring them from accessing the most dangerous of weapons.

💬 Ginny Andersen: What will this mean for individuals who breach prohibition orders?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A breach of firearms prohibition orders will attract stern penalties, including up to two years’ imprisonment if a person breaches a certain condition and is found, for example, to reside in a location where there are firearms, or visits a prohibited location such as a gun shop; up to five years in prison if the person is found to be in possession or control of a firearm; up to seven years’ imprisonment if the firearm was a prohibited firearm such as a military-style semi-automatic; and up five years in prison—or up to seven years’ imprisonment if the firearm was a prohibited firearm—for knowingly supplying the firearm to a person subject to a firearms prohibition order.

💬 Ginny Andersen: What alternative approaches to firearms prohibition orders did the Government consider in bringing this bill before the House?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government did consider previous proposals that were considered in 2014 and 2016. We also considered previous bills that have been considered by the House to limit firearms prohibition orders to only gang members, and also to have the police issuing the firearms prohibition orders. We ultimately decided on this course of action because we thought it was justified to have a wider scope, a wider coverage, than just gang members—that, in fact, there were examples where other violent offenders should also be covered—and we felt that the most appropriate body to be issuing the orders wasn’t the police but was the courts, and so, ultimately, we feel we’ve reached a better balance.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Will the implementation of the firearms prohibition orders include the search powers that the Police Association recommended, saying that without them the bill would be useless?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Welcome back to the member. I was worried—I hadn’t seen him for a while. As has been well canvassed—and we canvassed at the select committee—the Government doesn’t intend to provide the police with additional warrantless search powers. There are additional warranted search powers that the House will be asked to consider shortly that deal specifically with gang-related tensions. In terms of warrantless search powers, we did consider a range of advice on that, and, ultimately, one of the risks that we were weighing up there was that they could end up being used against law-abiding firearms owners, and that is a group that the Government does not want to target with this legislation.

Question No. 6—Housing

6. to the Minister of Housing: Tēnā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā tātou e te Whare.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, indeed my greetings to all of us in the House.]

Kia orana kotou katoatoa i te ‘Epetoma o te reo Maori Kūki ‘Āirani. Te kaupapa ‘Ātuitui‘ia au ki te Oneone o tōku ‘Ui Tupuna. Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and actions on housing?

Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Yes. I am particularly proud of the more than 10,000 new public homes that this Government has delivered since 2017, the largest public house - building programme since the 1970s. I am also proud of and stand by the suite of dedicated Māori housing policies of our Government, led by Minister Henare. These address housing needs from homelessness right through to homeownership.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: How can she stand by her Government’s actions on rental housing in Te Waiariki when new data shows that for the first time ever, the median rent in the Bay of Plenty has surpassed both Auckland and Wellington, making it the most expensive place to rent in the country?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Bay of Plenty, and particularly Rotorua, is one of the most challenging areas we have for housing. There is a very simple reason for this: there simply are not enough houses. Over the last decade, the population of Rotorua has grown by around 9,000 people. However, there have only been 1,500 consents granted in Rotorua, most of those in the last two years. There simply have not been enough homes built in that area, and that is why Rotorua was one of the first cabs off the rank in the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund, as was Tauranga through the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund. Our Government is finally backing this region to make sure that we can have more homes built. Other Governments have not done so.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Is she concerned by reports such as those from the Rotorua Budget Advisory Service manager, Pakanui Tuhura, who has said that people in Rotorua were doing anything and everything to keep a roof over their kids’ heads, including taking extra jobs, bringing in family as boarders, and buying less food?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes, I am, and this is why Rotorua was, I think, the largest recipient of the first round of the Infrastructure Investment Fund. It’s also why Rotorua has been singled out as an area for over-delivery in the public housing plan, because we simply do not have enough public houses in Rotorua. The previous Government decreased the number and failed to build there, and we are building them back.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: How is it not an indictment on her Government that things are so desperate for whānau in my electorate, with rising rents, rising prices, and flat-lining incomes, that Rotorua residents are saying, “We may as well go bush.”?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We acknowledge how difficult it is. We acknowledge that housing is one of the areas that people are struggling with the most. However, this housing crisis is one that has been created over a long period of time. What there needs to be is a commitment to a long and sustained period of work and investment, which our Government is putting in. We will turn this around, but it is not going to happen overnight.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: What is she specifically doing to address rising rents and homelessness in Waiariki other than pumping millions into private hotel companies?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’ve addressed a number of those initiatives in answers to previous questions in this set. Critical is making sure that we have land that houses can be built on, and this is why both Rotorua and Tauranga have been large recipients of the first round of the Infrastructure Investment Fund, with Rotorua being the largest. Rotorua in particular is also an area that has been singled out for over-delivery in the public housing plan, and it is one of the place-based initiatives we have because we understand there is such need in this area.

Question No. 7—Prime Minister

7. to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by his Government’s statements and policies?

Yes, and, as we’ve just heard, particularly the 10,037 additional public homes delivered since Labour came into office. Investing in public housing is a priority of this Government—more than 10 percent of all public housing in New Zealand has been built under this Government. After a lost decade that left New Zealand with 1,500 fewer State homes and a backlog of deferred maintenance, this Government has rebuilt the State’s ability to grow and provide public housing, with the biggest State housing - building and improvement programme since the 1970s. Warm and dry public housing provides an important safety net for New Zealanders. It is crucial for the health, security, and stability of individuals and whānau.

Brooke van Velden: How does the Government spend $14 million, hire 750 people, and still fail to get basic things right—like not giving the cost of living payment to non - New Zealanders living overseas?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Again, there’s members on the other side of the House that are opposed to the cost of living payment. The reality is there’s 1.3 million New Zealanders, and counting, because when others get their tax returns filed for this year, they’re very appreciative of the fact that they’re getting the cost of living payment.

Brooke van Velden: Given that policy experts—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will start the question again. You don’t ever start a question with a “Given”.

Brooke van Velden: When policy experts, care-experienced youth organisations working directly with children and young people, and all other political parties are saying that the Oranga Tamariki oversight bill creates the risk of increased abuse and the potential for abuse to be swept under the carpet, will the Government consider withdrawing the Oranga Tamariki oversight bill?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The short answer to that is no. We believe that it will give Oranga Tamariki the oversight that it actually needs, and I know that the Minister for Children believes that Oranga Tamariki needs strong oversight.

Brooke van Velden: Does he stand by the Government’s policy of using Shortland Street to promote nursing as a career option, and how does he respond to the New Zealand Nurses Organisation president, Anne Daniels, who responded, “Is this for real?”

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: So I’d caution the member on making light of the reach Shortland Street has. With viewership of 350,000 people a night, that’s a lot of potential future nurses, healthcare assistants, and allied health workforce.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, come on.

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: Oh, you know you watch it, Gerry.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Who was that?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: It was Megan Woods.

💬 SPEAKER: No, no—there was noise from both sides, and the loudest—[Interruption]

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: It was me.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, is the member taking her mask off in order to withdraw and apologise?

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: Oh sorry, no—I’ll put it back.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I’m just trying to work out if the member pleaded guilty to causing that ruckus.

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: I did.

💬 SPEAKER: Right. Well, withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: And I just want to warn the people who reacted to the member not to, because your reaction was louder than the original crime.

Brooke van Velden: What does he say to Prudence Thomson of Accent Health Recruitment, who says it is “insane” that nurses are not on a tier 1, straight-to-residence pathway, and does he accept that doing so could be more effective at improving the health workforce than using Shortland Street?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: There is now a clear pathway to residency for all registered nurses based on their occupation, so long as they stay a nurse for two years. This is a globally competitive offer, and it’s also interesting to note that since 2017, there has been an increase of 4,276 fulltime-equivalent nurses, and also an increase in doctors by 1,765. This Government has been addressing the problems in the health system; understanding, as well, and appreciating that the health sector has been under incredible strain over the last couple of years.

Question No. 8—Health

8. to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made on the future of the health workforce?

Yesterday, I announced a package of targeted measures to train more health workers domestically and bring more doctors and nurses into the country to help address immediate workforce pressures. The package to boost the health workforce includes the establishment of a one-stop shop for international recruitment within Te Whatu Ora—Health New Zealand, training more GPs and radiology registrars, and removing significant cost barriers for professional registration.

💬 Dr Gaurav Sharma: How will these measures grow our domestic workforce?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Growing our domestic health workforce is an important step for the long-term change required in New Zealand to ensure everyone can get the best care where and when they need it. Our domestic workforce pipeline will benefit from, firstly, the expansion of a successful programme that provides $5,000 in funding for every non-practising nurse in New Zealand who wants to return to nursing to help get them re-registered; secondly, a joint project with the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners to increase the number of GPs trained each year to 300 and to get more Māori and Pacific GPs; thirdly, doubling the number of nurse practitioners trained each year from 50 to 100; and, finally, increasing training slots for radiology registrars from 100 a year at the moment to 115 a year from 2024.

💬 Dr Gaurav Sharma: What will these new measures mean for internationally qualified health workers wanting to come to New Zealand?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As a Government, we know that we won’t meet the demand required for our health workforce through our domestic pipeline alone. Now we’ve changed immigration rules to make New Zealand one of the easiest places in the world for health workers to come to, we’ve put in a range of measures. Te Whatu Ora—Health New Zealand is an accredited employer, so it can facilitate bringing people into the country, and the following measures will allow us to ensure the process of moving to Aotearoa New Zealand is as easy and attractive as possible: firstly, an international recruitment service is being set up within Te Whatu Ora—Health New Zealand, which, as I said before, will be a one-stop shop for all those people who want to come here; secondly, the provision of up to $10,000 in financial support for international nurses for New Zealand registration costs; and, thirdly, covering international doctors’ salaries during their six-week clinical induction courses and three-month training internships.

Question No. 9—Housing

9. to the Minister of Housing: Does she stand by her statement, “What we don’t have is people living on the streets and in cars”, and how many children were included in the applications for people on the public housing register who were living in a car at the time they applied as at the quarter ending 30 June 2022?

In answer to the first part of the question, I stand by my full statement in the context of defending expenditure on emergency housing motels against Opposition attacks, where I said, “What we don’t have is people living on the street or in cars. That’s the alternative.”, and I am yet to hear from the critics of that spend a constructive suggestion of what the alternative is. Stopping spending isn’t the answer. The answer is building permanent transitional and emergency housing, and that is exactly what we are doing. In answer to the second part of the question, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) advises me that they collect data on the people applying to the register at the point of presentation, and in the quarter ending 30 June 2022, 480 applicants on the public housing register reported living in a car at the time they applied. People living in cars is not acceptable, and the difference under our Government is they don’t have to. We acknowledge that there is a housing crisis, we have removed the cap the previous Government set on funding emergency housing places, and we actively work with people to come forward and seek help if they need it. This is the same spending that the member and his party is constantly criticising.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary question is “how many children were included in the applications for people on the public housing register”. The Minister gave me the total number of applications, which was 480. I know for a fact that the data is broken down as to how many children were included in the applications, and the Minister didn’t give me that answer.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, if the member knows the answer—

💬 Chris Bishop: No, I know the fact that the data is built like that.

💬 SPEAKER: I think it’s an area the member can pursue by way of supplementary, if he wants to.

💬 Chris Bishop: Well, point of order, Mr Speaker. The—

💬 SPEAKER: Is the member proposing to not have a supplementary?

💬 Chris Bishop: No. I’m proposing that you make the Minister answer the question, which is a primary question on notice.

💬 SPEAKER: And if there was a requirement to answer the question, this place would be very different. The question was addressed.

💬 Chris Bishop: It’s a primary question on notice.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Does the member want to have a supplementary?

💬 Chris Bishop: Yes.

💬 SPEAKER: Ask it.

💬 Chris Bishop: How many children of the 480 the Minister referenced in her primary answer were included on the applications for people on the public housing register who were living in a car at the time they applied at the quarter ending 30 June 2022?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The household composition data is broken down in a way that doesn’t necessarily reflect whether or not those children are in cars. So if we have a look at two-plus adults with children that were part of it for the period ended 30 June 2022, there were 15 applicants; single with children were 99. But the point about this is it doesn’t necessarily follow because of the complex family arrangements of these that these children are actually in the custody of the people who are applying. The situation is a little bit more complicated than the numbers, and that’s why I gave the member the total number in the answer to the primary question.

💬 Chris Bishop: Can she confirm that the Government has regularly provided—including as recently as March last year—the number of children included in the applications for people on the public housing register, and, given the total number is 480, why can she not tell the House now what the number of children included in those applications is?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In as far as I have responsibility as the Minister of Housing for this, the numbers that I have given are what I am advised from MSD—that the household composition is broken down by the number of household applications that include children in those applications. There could be other data, but that is not what I have been advised of.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why did she say in June 2021 “What we don’t have is people living on the streets and in cars” when the number of people recorded as living in cars at the end of March 2021 was 435, including 198 children?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The point that I made in answer to the primary question is that when people identify as living in a car at the point of application to go on to the housing register with MSD, then they do not stay living in a car. They are then transferred into emergency housing, and that offer is made to them. Of course, not everyone chooses to go on it, but the offer is made. The other point that I made in answer to the primary question is that, unlike the previous Government, who capped the number of places—and Paula Bennett, by her own admission at the time as Minister, admitted that there were not enough places for everybody that needed it—in 2017, we give people a motel roof over their head rather than a car roof over their head, and that member is now crying crocodile tears because he and his party do nothing but criticise that spending.

💬 Chris Bishop: Does she agree with the 2017 statement by Labour MP Jacinda Ardern that “Kids living in cars & motels is not a sign of care”, and, if so, is she concerned that according to MSD, the number of people living in cars has quadrupled under this Government?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes, I do agree with that statement from Jacinda Ardern, and that’s why we as a Government have put in place measures such as the Homelessness Action Plan. It’s why we are funding the largest public housing build since the 1970s. It’s why we have more than quadrupled the number of permanent transitional houses since we came into Government. I also concur with Simon Bridges, who is quoted in Blue Blood: “We didn’t put sufficient weight on the social issues like housing and the environment. The ’14-’17 term was the time to open up the till a bit and do something about social spending.” Clearly, Mr Bridges went on a road to Damascus that the current housing spokesperson for the National Party has not been on.

💬 Chris Bishop: Will she instruct her officials to go out and make their number one priority getting kids and families out of cars and into accommodation, and say to her officials, “I will not approve a single extra back-office staff member for your organisation until you sort it out.’?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The back-office staff members, who you sorted out—the refuge of the people without policy since for ever. I don’t have to give that undertaking to this House, because that is exactly what our Government is doing. We are not a Government that by our own admission is not funding enough motel places to get kids out of cars—we have made that a priority. The National Party have done nothing but criticise that, but I stand by the quadrupling of transitional housing places, I stand by the Homelessness Action Plan, and I stand by the 10,000 additional public housing places that we have delivered in five years of Government. What we are doing is dealing with the dregs of the carnage of a housing crisis created by the National Party.

Question No. 10—Environment

10. to the Minister for the Environment: Kia orana, Mr Speaker. What reports has he received on the costs of consenting under the Resource Management Act?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Late last year, I received a report from the Infrastructure Commission on the cost of consenting infrastructure projects in New Zealand. This report found the cost of consents for medium-sized infrastructure projects has increased 150 percent in the last 10 years. Costs are now 250 percent of what they were just a decade ago. The time taken to make decisions on consent applications for infrastructure projects has also increased by as much as 150 percent over the same period.

💬 Ingrid Leary: Will the cost of consents for infrastructure be substantially reduced under the Spatial Planning Act (SPA) and the Natural and Built Environments Act (NBA)?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: The over 100 Resource Management Act (RMA) plans will transition into around 14 NBA plans. Infrastructure projects will flow from spatial plans through to NBA plans, with designations in place, and then be allowed as permitted activities, subject to meeting standards. Millions and millions of dollars of cost and much delay and frustration will be avoided.

💬 Ingrid Leary: How will these standards be developed?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: The National Planning Framework will consolidate existing national direction under the RMA. Importantly, a new infrastructure and development chapter for the National Planning Framework is currently being developed. This work is being led by Te Waihanga—the Infrastructure Commission—in cooperation with the Ministry for the Environment and other agencies. It is expected to include standards by reference for things like sediment control. Applicants will be able to propose control standard 1, 2, or 3, and the council in its decision will specify which standard is to be applied. Neither the applicant nor the council will have to specify complex bespoke conditions, which they currently do, at enormous cost and time.

💬 Ingrid Leary: How ready will the new system be when it starts compared to the RMA?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: The SPA and NBA process will be decades ahead. The RMA lacked national direction for decades. No standard plan format was provided, and no significant central government help was provided to councils for first-generation RMA plans. Budget 2022 allocated funding for the completion of the National Planning Framework, the infrastructure chapter I’ve referred to, and the first model SPA and NBA plans.

Question No. 11—Justice

11. to the Minister of Justice: How does she reconcile her statement to the House on 21 June that “equal voting rights are critically fundamental to New Zealand’s democracy” with her statement in relation to the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill, “we will be supporting that bill”?

I’d reconcile it in the same way the previous National Government did during their tenure—specifically, that I don’t believe the statements to be contradictory.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is she aware that the Canterbury Regional Council bill gives Ngāi Tahu the right to appoint two councillors after all eligible voters, including Māori, have had an equal vote for the other councillors, thereby giving unequal voting rights to Ngāi Tahu members?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I’ll get this House to cast our minds all the way back to the good old years of 2015-16, when the Rt Hon John Key was at the helm, and you’ll remember that it was that then National Government that stewarded through the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill. That bill, if this House will recall, did exactly one of two things: first, it ensured that there were democratic representatives elected to Environment Canterbury (ECan); secondly, it ensured that Ngāi Tahu retained the right and the obligation to appoint two members to that entity. To quote, actually, a good friend of this House, the Hon Scott Simpson: “I think that probably one of the great hallmarks of this time”—

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order.

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: —“under the guidance”—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member cannot have a point of order at the moment.

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I go back to one of the great quotes of this House from the Hon Scott Simpson, as he was then. When commenting on the appointment of Ngāi Tahu representatives to ECan, he said, “the rebuilding of relationships in Canterbury, not only with other local government authorities and territorial bodies but also particularly with Ngāi Tahu … I was delighted that we will be able to make the recommended changes which have been adopted in this bill to have Ngāi Tahu nominating two representatives.” I could go on. The Hon Louise Upston—

💬 SPEAKER: No, the member can’t—the member can’t.

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: No, sir? OK.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a question about a particular bill, and she gave an answer about National Party history 10 years ago and didn’t actually address the question that I answered.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think she addressed the issue, if not the bill.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she think that it is a good constitutional practice for a material change to the constitutional principle of equal voting rights to be carried through this House without public engagement and support for that change?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: It’s like all my Christmases have come at once this question time. Like previous Governments have in this House, we absolutely believe in the fundamental constitutional presumption of representative democracy—as we have done—tailored in New Zealand’s context. As the previous National Government—I’ll quote my friend Louise Upston. The committee was making some amendments to the Environment Canterbury bill on the recommendation from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, as it was in this case: “I support the recommendation [to add two additional roles], given the guardianship role and the strong partnership that has developed between Ngāi Tahu and Environment Canterbury”. She goes on to say that it’s appropriate to ensure that this partnership recognises Ngāi Tahu’s “significant and unique interest in Canterbury’s environment and the management of its natural resources”. This side of the House continues to enable the growth of our unique constitutional arrangements.

💬 Rino Tirikatene: Is the Minister aware of the results of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act assessment of the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill undertaken by the Ministry of Justice?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: As the member knows, determining the consistency of the legislation with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is the responsibility of the Attorney-General, supported by the Ministry of Justice. However, I note that the publicly available assessment undertaken by the Ministry of Justice stated that “the Bill appears to be consistent with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the Bill of Rights Act”, and that “The Bill is intended to reinstate”—reinstate on the basis of the amendments made in 2015-16 under the National Government—“Ngāi Tahu representation on Environment Canterbury, which was previously provided for during 2016-2019 under the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Act 2016.”

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does the Minister not understand the difference between appointments made by a democratically elected Government which is accountable—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Who was that?

💬 Hon Member: Nicola.

💬 SPEAKER: Who was making—well, Nicola Grigg just lost one of Mr Goldsmith’s supplementaries.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can I start the question again, Mr Speaker?

💬 SPEAKER: You can.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does the Minister not understand the difference between appointments of commissioners by a democratically elected Government which is accountable at the ballot box, and a permanent constitutional change made by a Government which moves away from the principle of equal voting rights?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Fortunately, I do, as can be reflected in the fact that I understood, for example, that the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill was a composition of seven democratically elected members plus two additionally appointed members by Ngāi Tahu—so same-same.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Supplementary.

💬 SPEAKER: No, the member lost it—well, it was lost for him.

Question No. 12—Immigration

12. to the Minister of Immigration: What recent announcements has he made about opening New Zealand up to the world?

This Sunday, New Zealand marked the final step in our reconnecting plan with visitors from non - visa waiver countries and international students now eligible to apply for a visa to enter New Zealand. We also opened the maritime border to cruise ships, specialist vessels, and recreational vessels. This follows the opening up of the Accredited Employer Work Visa earlier in July, which has received healthy interest from employers, with 23,000 job-check applications received and 7,100 approved. As a country, we’re looking forward to welcoming everyone from around the world back to our shores, which is great news for our tourism industry and our economy and society as we move into the warmer months of the year.

💬 Arena Williams: How will the full reopening of our borders benefit our economy?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well, pre-pandemic, visits from cruise ships were worth in excess of $500 million a year, of which $356 million was spent onshore, providing a valuable economic contribution to our regions. The opening of our maritime border in time for the warmer months of October to April will see that spend return to these communities. Prior to the pandemic, the international education sector was worth several billion dollars per year to our country. The full resumption of student visa processing is great news for learning establishments, who we’re working closely with to help recover from the effects of the pandemic.

💬 Arena Williams: What reports has he seen about demand for travelling to New Zealand?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well, we know that globally there is pent-up demand for people to visit New Zealand. In January, 58 percent of Australians who would like to visit New Zealand wanted to come within six months of the border opening and the same figure was 77 percent for visitors from the American market, and we’re seeing very strong results in key winter destinations like Queenstown. These reflect New Zealand’s reputation as an attractive destination to visit, and I acknowledge the work of my colleague the Hon Stuart Nash in helping to set the tourism industry up for this return of visitors.

💬 SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions.