Oral Questions

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

Yes. In particular, I stand by my statements on health funding and this Government’s record investment in health and education to deliver the public services New Zealanders depend on. Under this Government, we’ve increased health funding by 44 percent since 2017, including an increase of over 10 percent in Budget 2022, to fund services in the most significant reform programme in health in a generation. We’ve also increased the nursing workforce by 4,200 fulltime-equivalents (FTEs) and 1,700 FTEs in the doctor workforce since coming into office. We’ve increased Pharmac’s medicines budget to a record $1.235 billion per annum, and we’ve established from scratch a primary-care mental health service that has delivered nearly half a million sessions through primary-care providers. We’ve also committed $7 billion for infrastructure to modernise our hospitals. We’ve put more into education since we’ve been in Government than National did, including $3.6 billion since 2018 on improving school property, delivering over 1,300 more classrooms, supporting over 2,900 additional teachers, and providing over 58 million lunches to 947 schools and kura. The question for Kiwis is—they can trust this Labour Government will continue to invest in health and education; the question is whether or not National will.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why did she agree to the cost of living payment, knowing that it would result in taxpayer money going to people living overseas?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member fails to acknowledge that the criteria explicitly says, of course, that it’s for those earning $70,000 or less, over the age of 18, not receiving the winter energy payment, and, of course, resident in New Zealand. Of course, while individuals are not obliged to tell us if they are overseas, that was one of the criteria. We have some ability to determine if that is the case, but we also ask New Zealanders offshore that they update their IRD information. That, of course, will prevent them from receiving it.

💬 Christopher Luxon: When will the Prime Minister be able to tell taxpayers exactly how much of their money has been sent to people living overseas?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I set out, the criteria is very explicit. The payment is designed for those who are earning $70,000 or less and are resident in New Zealand. If someone is continuing to pay tax but is also offshore, we can only decipher that if they inform IRD. Again, IRD has created the opportunity for people to update their information or indeed opt out if they so choose. I would, however, contrast that the member’s alternative is, for instance, a tax cut for those on $180,000 or less. I would rather a payment that 2.1 million Kiwis are eligible for, who are on low and middle incomes.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Was Kiritapu Allan correct when she stated that the cost of living payment scheme had been developed “essentially overnight”, and, if so, does this explain why it’s resulted in so much taxpayer money being sent to people living overseas?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The vast majority of people receiving it, of course, are low and middle income earners in New Zealand, in contrast to the member’s proposal to give a tax cut to those earning $180,000 or more through his tax policies, which would also be inflationary and make the cost of living worse for New Zealanders on low and middle incomes. What the Minister was referring to was that we have ensured that we’ve had the increase in the family tax credit, the decrease in the cost of fuel at the pump, and, as we saw inflation increasing, we moved to provide this payment, because, of course, we wanted to ensure that we were responding to what Kiwis were seeing, because it is tough out there.

💬 Christopher Luxon: What does she say to New Zealanders who worked hard and paid their taxes, who are angry her Government has knowingly sent their money to expats and backpackers living overseas?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I totally reject the premise of that question. The criteria is very clear on who this is intended to go for, and the vast majority of people receiving it are exactly those individuals.

💬 Hon Peeni Henare: Sorry, none in Hawaii!

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she agree with—

💬 SPEAKER: Right. Who made the comment that caused the mirth? The member will withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Peeni Henare: I withdraw and apologise, sir.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she agree with Labour leader Jacinda Ardern, who tweeted in 2017 that “kids living in cars and motels is not a sign of care”, and, if so, why are there four times as many people living in cars today than when she became Prime Minister?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I stand by that, as I do stand by, also, the focus this Government has on increasing wages and decreasing unemployment across this country. And it gives me the opportunity today to highlight that in the stats we have seen released today: Māori unemployment at 5.5 percent, Pacific unemployment at 5.4 percent, average ordinary time hourly earnings rose to 6.4 percent. I stand by the policies of this Government, which are focused on increasing the incomes of Kiwis and ensuring that they are in work. And when you think about the times we’re in, those are remarkable statistics.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she agree that prices outpacing wages for eight straight quarters, or two full years, means Kiwis are going backwards at a historic rate?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I have highlighted to the member time and time again, when you look across the course of the time that we have had in office, we have consistently seen wages outstrip the cost of living increase here in the year 2022 in New Zealand. As we are seeing around the world, we do have high rates of inflation. There are, of course, projections that that is set to improve over the course of this year, and we can anticipate a return once more to wages, under a Labour Government, once again outstripping the cost of living. I would highlight for the member that we did have consistent periods under the National Government when not only did we have inflation outstrip wages, we had very low wage growth rate.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Isn’t it embarrassing that a Government that claims to care about workers has delivered an economy where the cost of living has gone up faster than wages for the majority of the time it’s been in power?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I utterly reject the premise of that statement. As we’ve said, wage growth has exceeded Consumers Price Index between the start of 2018 and 2021 with an average of 3.7 percent versus 2.2 percent. And, again, I stand here proud that in the worst economic crisis we have seen in our lifetimes, when they projected unemployment to be double digit and that we could have expected, as we saw in the global financial crisis, high rates of—particularly of Māori and Pacific—unemployment, we have some of the lowest rates we have ever seen. That is because this is a Labour Government focused on policies that support our people into work and into decent wages.

Question No. 2—Housing

2. to the Minister of Housing: What action is the Government taking to increase the supply of housing outside the main urban centres?

Kia orana, Mr Speaker. As part of the Government’s plan to tackle the national housing crisis, we’re delivering more public homes outside New Zealand’s main urban centres. The Public Housing Plan 2021-2024 focuses on building new public and transitional homes where they are most needed, including regional centres and towns where housing demand is growing fastest. This wasn’t happening before. In order to do this, we’re building effective collaborative partnerships between Government, iwi and Māori, community housing providers, local government, and the construction industry. We’ve also changed the funding settings for community housing providers (CHPs) and Kāinga Ora, which has enabled them to claim a higher operating supplement to incentivise developments in priority locations. Changes to the rent maxima have also enabled CHPs to build outside of our main centres. There is no silver bullet to solving the national housing crisis that we inherited, and there is plenty more work to do. But our Government is continuing to invest to boost the supply of public homes in our regional towns and centres.

💬 Rachel Boyack: Have any of the Government’s 10,000 new public homes been added in Nelson?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’m proud to say that we’ve added 158 public homes in Nelson since coming to Government, and have another 161 planned out to July 2025. This is a game-changer for Nelson, who between 2008 and 2017 saw a net loss of 16 public houses. We are also improving the current stock of Nelson with 18 of the homes in Nelson being upgraded through the retrofit programme. These are homes that will improve people’s lives.

Tāmati Coffey: How many of the Government’s 10,000 new public homes are in Rotorua?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We have made good progress in Rotorua with 209 additional public houses. This is starting to unwind the damage done by the previous National Government, who ended up with 44 fewer houses in Rotorua in 2017. There are also a further 300 public homes currently under construction in Rotorua. Rotorua is a priority for us for developing additional housing supply more broadly, and it’s why we funded additional infrastructure through the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund to enable over 3,000 additional homes in that area.

💬 Chris Bishop: Has she had any discussions with the Minister of Health, who’s getting Shortland Street to help him recruit nurses, about utilising the TV programme The Block to actually help her build some houses?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No, because we are a Government that actually—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No, because we’re actually a Government that has policy on housing. I’m yet to hear one from the National Opposition.

💬 Anna Lorck: Are any of the Government’s 10,000 new public houses in Hastings?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Hastings is seeing an additional 157 public homes added under this Government. Unfortunately, there was a net loss of 192 public homes in Hastings between 2008 and 2017. The work this Government is doing is bringing and will continue to bring new public housing to the regions to undo the damage. I am also happy to report that another 133 public home builds are currently in progress and 75 more are in the planning stages.

💬 Dr Emily Henderson: Have any of the Government’s 10,000 new public homes been delivered in Whangārei?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’m happy to report that our Government has added 166 new public homes in Whangārei over the past five years, and there are over 500 in the pipeline for delivery by 2024/2025. This was an area that the previous Government did make some progress on; over nine years, they added five houses. We are proud of our record, but we know there is more to be done, and that’s why we are making good progress on the Puriri Park development, which will bring 37 new homes to Whangārei by the end of this year.

Question No. 3—Social Development and Employment

3. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with the statement in yesterday’s report on the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill by Jonathan Boston and David King that “locating the Monitor so close to the centre of power creates the risk of a vicious cycle of increasing levels of abuse and the potential for abuse to be swept under the carpet,” or does she agree with Minister Davis’ statement that for those who submitted against the bill, it was “just another thing to grizzle about”?

In response to the first part of the question, I do not agree that the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill will risk increasing levels of abuse or the sweeping of abuse under the carpet. The bill includes specific provisions that set out a duty for the Monitor to act independently. The bill proposes a statutory officer model, statutory reporting requirements, power to require information, powers of entry, and a limit on Ministers’ ability to direct the Monitor. The Monitor can escalate matters at their discretion to the entire Parliament, to Ministers, to the Children and Young People’s Commission, and to the public. In response to the second part of the question, Minister Davis and I have both appreciated feedback from stakeholders on the bill itself, and this has informed a number of pivotal changes to the select committee process.

💬 Karen Chhour: Will the Minister be showing up to the vigil for the survivors of State care outside her electorate office tomorrow to accept the petition asking her to pause the Oranga Tamariki oversight bill, and, if so, will she tell the survivors to their face that she knows better than them?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: During this process, I have spoken to a number of stakeholders, including Voyce—people that have been in care themselves. I am confident in what this bill is going to achieve. The Beattie Report that was released in 2018 said that we need to act with urgency. We need to make sure that we have the oversight system in place that ensures the protection of those that are in State care, and so we will not be pausing the bill.

💬 Karen Chhour: Will the Minister continue to ignore the opposition of vulnerable and care-experienced children, policy experts, advocacy groups, and all other political parties, and does she think it is appropriate that the Minister responsible for the Oranga Tamariki oversight bill seems determined not to listen to the children she is supposed to be protecting?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I said, I have spoken to a number of stakeholders about the legislation, and, actually, the select committee did a very good job of listening to the submissions and made changes as a result of the submissions that were made and what was heard. This piece of legislation is incredibly important. I’m really looking forward to the committee stages of this bill, where we can go through part by part to address some of the concerns that have been raised, to look at the language, and to have that debate so that we can provide assurance to the public that the bill achieves what it sets out to do.

💬 Harete Hipango: The Minister is reminded that in your maiden speech, of 16 December 2008—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member might want to go back and restart the question, because she was running into the risk of being out of order straight away.

💬 Harete Hipango: Does the Minister remember her maiden speech, given on 16 December 2008—“The difference between this job and any others I have held is that I am privileged now to be at the ultimate of decision-making tables. Whilst at this table my commitment is to advocate for the vulnerable”—and why does the Minister now deliberately ignore the voice and views of the vulnerable, who themselves advocate against the oversight of the Oranga Tamariki systems bill?

💬 SPEAKER: I think we’ll overlook the fact that the Minister didn’t make the maiden speech, and let the Minister answer it.

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I am absolutely committed to ensuring that those kids who are in State care are provided with a system that works for them and protects them. My intent for being in this House has not changed from 2008. I also have a responsibility to traverse all of the information that is put in front of me, as well as to listen to the voices. We have listened to the voices, there have been changes that have been made to the bill, and, as I said, I am looking forward to the committee stage to be able to go through it part by part to address some of the concerns that are still being raised.

💬 Jan Logie: Does she agree with the analysis of the Auckland University Aotearoa New Zealand Centre for Indigenous Peoples and the Law report Time to Taihoa that found that the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill as returned from the committee was inconsistent with Te Tiriti and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in content and process; if not, why not?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: No. The bill’s Treaty provisions were carefully crafted with Te Kāhui, who supported the Ministry of Social Development’s consultation with Māori across the country. The bill creates obligations on the oversight bodies to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The specific clause in the bill directly emerged from key Māori stakeholders who called for specific obligations to be placed on the oversight bodies rather than a broad Treaty of Waitangi clause which can be open to interpretation and run the risk of diluting the obligations on agencies. Also, in reference to UNDRIP, the draft declaration is still going through consultation. So it would not be appropriate to write into legislation now something that is still actively being considered.

💬 Karen Chhour: What would it take for the Minister to listen to the vulnerable children advocacy groups and policy experts who are crying out for her to pause this bill?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Those children are front of mind for us as a Government, and that is why we will not be pausing the bill. They deserve to have an oversight system that is in place, that is robust, and we are doing that through this legislation.

💬 Karen Chhour: Does she believe that the effective oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system is dependent on a high degree of public trust, and, if so, how does she reconcile this with a statement in the report that “The significant level of opposition to the Bill, especially from organisations working most directly with children and young people, along with all other [political] parties in Parliament, clearly demonstrates the Monitor does not enjoy the necessary level of trust.”?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Again, this is why I am looking forward to the committee stage. I have been asked questions by the media and others that actually are not part of what is in this bill, questions like “Why are we dismantling the Children’s Commission?” when that is clearly not happening; questions like “Why are we moving the monitoring mechanism out of the Children’s Commission and into ERO?” when that’s not happening, because the Independent Children’s Monitor was established in the Ministry of Social Development and we’re shifting that function to the Education Review Office from there. There are so many things that have been said about this bill that we need to be able to debate robustly in this House, and the committee stage will give us an opportunity to go through line by line and do that.

Question No. 4—Social Development and Employment

4. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What progress has been made on supporting people into jobs in the regions?

In 2018, my colleague the Hon Willie Jackson proposed the establishment of regional skills leadership groups (RSLGs) to make Government more responsive to the workforce needs of our regions. The insights produced by the then interim RSLGs were critical to our COVID-19 response. They are one of the many reasons our economy has remained resilient, with unemployment continuing at near-record lows. The last month has seen many of the now permanent RSLGs release their regional workforce plans. Each plan is unique to its region and people, and reflects the sectors and opportunities that are important to them. The plans will be a catalyst for regions to build a shared vision for their labour markets and will influence regional decision-making to drive change that supports more New Zealanders into good jobs. I want to congratulate the RSLGs on progressing this critical kaupapa for our regions.

💬 Angela Roberts: What recent reports has the Minister seen on employment outcomes for New Zealanders in the regions?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Today, the latest household labour force survey was released. It shows unemployment has remained at near-record lows, thanks to the Government’s economic plan to support households and businesses through the challenging global environment, resulting in more people in work and wages rising. While we always have to be careful about the regional data in this survey due to low sample numbers, it was heartening to see these strong national numbers reflected in our regions. My original home region of Taranaki continued a trend of falling unemployment since December 2021, dropping to only 1.8 percent. This is the lowest unemployment rate in Taranaki since the survey began, and represents 1,600 less people unemployed than at this time last year. With New Plymouth seeing a 15 percent decrease in the number of people receiving jobseeker work-ready support in the year to June 2022, it is clear that this Government’s focus on employment upskilling and training is paying off for Taranaki.

💬 Angela Roberts: What other kaupapa is the Government continuing to support New Zealanders in our regions into good jobs?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Between June 2021 and April 2022, nearly 3,000 young people who were not in employment, education, or training were supported into permanent employment by the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs. The task force is a Ministry of Social Development partnership with Local Government New Zealand that supports New Zealanders in our regions, like Mitchell Boyce, an 18-year-old in Woodville. Mitchell not only gained an apprenticeship through the programme but also received support with tools and with obtaining his restricted driver licence. The Government has invested $14 million this year—including $6 million in new funding—in the task force to ensure 1,450 more New Zealanders like Mitchell can receive the localised, wraparound support they need to move into employment, education, or training.

Question No. 5—Revenue

5. to the Minister of Revenue: Has Inland Revenue advised him why some people who haven’t lived in New Zealand for several years have received the cost of living payment, and will Inland Revenue be investigating what specific errors have led to these payments being made?

Yes, to the first part of the question, and to the second part of the question, no, because this cost of living payment is made on the basis of the best information that Inland Revenue hold. That is high quality data, but it is, and will always be, out of date at the margins. Inland Revenue are continually refining their data sets, including for this payment. Inland Revenue increasingly rely on sophisticated software to automate previously manual transactions. This saves the Government and taxpayers millions and millions of dollars every year on administration costs, with staff numbers at Inland Revenue down by around 2,000 people. Benefits to taxpayers include automated assessments, refunds, and other payments, worth hundreds of millions every year, and the use of automated data sets, which we strive to continue and improve, as well as it saves money and will continue to. People who know that the details held by Inland Revenue are out of date should update them.

💬 Nicola Willis: Has the IRD advised him on how many non-eligible people have received the payment and, if so, what is that number?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: As I said yesterday, and the member quoted in her primary question, no, because you can’t know, in a particular number sense, what you don’t know.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Oh. Old Rummy. Old Donald Rumsfeld’s back.

💬 Nicola Willis: How can he be confident—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Mr Goldsmith, I’ve been quite generous to the National Party today, as a result of an outburst from the other side. Does the member want that reversed? Nicola Willis, start again.

💬 Nicola Willis: How can he be confident that these issues aren’t more widespread when no investigations have taken place?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Because I’m confident that the Inland Revenue Department data sets are robust and are amongst the best data sets in the world. I also know that Cabinet considered and rejected the alternative, which would have cost a lot more money, which was to run an application process for the about 2 million people that are eligible, which would have cost a lot more than the money that would have saved and would have missed out a lot of eligible people. As the New Zealand Herald editorial today said, “The only practical solution … was a broad and largely unvetted package. … Anyone ‘embarrassed’ or ‘outraged’ by the over-reach of the scheme [can] return the payment or forward it to a charity—and update their [IRD] records … As a former Inland Revenue deputy commissioner has pointed out, there were problems with all alternative approaches and the scheme, despite its flaws, was the most immediate. Something had to be done, and doing nothing would have been worse.”

💬 Nicola Willis: Could the Minister explain the specific problems in the data sets which would have led to New Zealanders who have left the country five, six, or seven years ago receiving the cost of living payment?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, in that case, it must be that the Inland Revenue Department has a New Zealand address for that taxpayer rather than an overseas one.

💬 Nicola Willis: Are people living overseas who have received the cost of living payment required to pay it back?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: The payment is made on the basis of the automated data sets. We encourage people who think that they are not eligible to pay it back, but they’re not obliged to pay it back because it’s been legitimately paid to them. The cost of the alternative, which would have been an application-based process, would have been more than the cost savings made through that process and, as I said, wouldn’t have got the payment out to the 1.3 million people who’ve already received it.

💬 Nicola Willis: Why is the Minister saying people who received the payment in error aren’t required to pay it back, when section 7AAA of the Taxation (Cost of Living Payments) Act says, as a matter of law, they are required to pay it back.

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: That’s not the advice that I’ve received. The advice that I’ve received is if the payment was made legitimately on the basis of the screening that Inland Revenue have, there is no obligation on the tax department to chase it, nor the taxpayer to pay them back—though we would encourage them to do it. If someone, of course, is aware that they were not entitled to it and in some ways encouraged the payment to be made, then that could amount to a fraud on the tax department. In that case, it would be theoretically payable back. Whether that would be practical if someone was overseas would be an issue for the commissioner to assess, and, of course, the commissioner takes those decisions independently of the Government.

💬 Nicola Willis: Can he confirm the Minister of Justice’s statement this morning that the cost of living payment was designed “Essentially overnight.”, and is that the real explanation why this scheme is so riddled with errors and costing New Zealanders so much wasted money?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: The system is not riddled with errors, and the cost of administration of running an application-based process would have cost more. I would again note that alternatives such as tax cuts that others have proposed—that would give some people $2 a week, CEOs tens of thousands of dollars per annum, and overseas landlords thousands and thousands in tax cuts every year—would have been far, far worse, and would not have provided as much to the middle-income people that this payment is directed to.

Question No. 6—Trade and Export Growth

6. to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: What progress has the Government made on the Trade for All agenda?

💬 SPEAKER: The Hon Damien O’Connor. I can see he’s got a novel in front of him.

Oh. No, that’s not mine, actually. No. I could pick my box up, though, if you want. This Government’s Trade for All agenda continues to deliver meaningful commercial outcomes for our exporters. It is rebuilding the public’s trust in Government trade policy, and it is making sure that trade delivers for all New Zealanders. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus, and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership have all entered into force since we took office, covering 26 economies across the Indo-Pacific region. We’ve also concluded negotiations with the UK and the EU which are projected to increase GDP by up to $2.2 billion once fully implemented.

It’s not just the number of agreements we’ve concluded, but the quality of these agreements that matters. They have not only opened up more opportunities for our exporters; they set rules and establish dialogue on issues including labour, environment, and animal welfare. They also provide opportunities for Māori to cooperate and collaborate with our trade partners and push forward with our ambition to improve women’s participation in the export economy. I want to credit my friend and colleague David Parker for setting us on this path in 2017, and I’m proud to continue on with this work.

💬 Ibrahim Omer: Has pursuing the Trade for All agenda had a negative impact on New Zealand’s exports and trade relations?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: No, not at all. The Trade for All agenda has not only led to an improvement in the quality of our trade policy, but it has seen growth every year in our goods exports since this Government came to office in 2017—from $53.6 billion in 2017 to over $63 billion at the end of last year. This growth has come at one of the most challenging times for global trade, with the pandemic and now the Russian invasion of Ukraine snarling up supply chains and many Governments retrenching into more protectionist policies. I’m also heartened by the interest that many countries express in New Zealand’s Trade for All agenda as they grapple with similar issues that we confronted prior to 2017 about public confidence and buy-in for trade policy. Trade for All has not only produced positive outcomes for New Zealanders, but it provides an example for others in how a trade policy can be pursued that not only provides economic growth and security but has the confidence and the support of the broader public.

💬 Ibrahim Omer: What agreements is this Government currently pursuing under the Trade for All agenda?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: We have a large work programme that we are pursuing under our Trade for All agenda. We continue to lead the negotiations on the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade, and Sustainability, or ACCTS, with Fiji, Costa Rica, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland—a first-of-its-kind agreement to bring together some of the interrelated elements of the climate change, trade, and sustainable development agendas. We’re also continuing negotiation with the Gulf Cooperation Council and the Pacific Alliance, in which we are pursuing Trade for All - related outcomes. We also continue to seek an expansion of the Global Trade and Gender Agreement, GTAGA; and the Inclusive Trade Action Group, ITAG; and the Indigenous Peoples Economic and Trade Cooperation Arrangement, IPETCA. We have also joined the launch of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity, which brings together 14 countries from across the Indo-Pacific region to focus on some of the most important future-focused economic issues facing our region and the world, including harnessing our digital economy, decarbonising our economies, and making our supply chains more resilient.

Question No. 7—Health

7. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions around the health workforce?

Yes.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Why did his announcement this week on the health workforce not include an increase in the number of new medical school places available for home-grown doctors?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The announcements I made this week were matters that Te Whatu Ora—Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health are investing in. Matters of entrance to medical schools are a combination of health investment and education investment, largely through the Tertiary Education Commission. This Government remains focused on doing what we can to increase medical students in our medical schools, but we don’t have any particular announcement to make on that at this point.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Can he confirm that it will take months before a single new migrant nurse is added to the health workforce as a result of his announcements this week, and isn’t that far too slow when there are reports today of an elderly woman who was left lying in a hospital ward in her own urine for 14 hours?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Can I just say, in relation to the story of the woman in the hospital who was treated in that way, that I was horrified to hear that anybody in a New Zealand hospital would be treated in that sort of way. Although as Minister I can’t get into the specific details of an individual case, I would urge that patient and her family and whānau to take those issues up with the hospital, and if they’re not satisfied, to go to the Health and Disability Commissioner. In relation to the recruitment of nurses, the member might be interested to know that right now we have 7,000 overseas qualified health professionals who have registered their interest in wanting to come to work in New Zealand, including 3,200 nurses. I don’t anticipate we’ll have any difficulty in getting through the recruitment process to get nurses in place in New Zealand just as quickly as possible. I might say there are still some barriers that we have to deal with, but they are largely around the regulatory authorities such as the Nursing Council of New Zealand, but I can say the Nursing Council has written to me recently saying they wish to be part of a solution to make it easier for overseas nurses to get their registration.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: How then will he explain to the woman’s family and the reportedly understaffed hospital team that his health workforce announcements this week did not put migrant nurses on the immediate fast-track pathway to residency?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: What I would say to anybody is that nurses are now on the green list, and they have an ease of access to New Zealand that they have never had before. I only have to look at the number of those who are registering their interest to work in New Zealand: 3,200 nurses, overseas qualified, ready to work in New Zealand, and they will now be chased up.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: When he said in his health workforce announcements this week that he would be collaborating on nursing matters with Shortland Street, does he really think Shortland Street represents the nursing workforce?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member must have misheard what I said. The collaboration is between the New Zealand Nurses Organisation and the Ministry of Health. The recruitment campaign, which is badged Real Nurses, is a collaborative effort between the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, who actually came up with the idea and started the development of much of the collateral, and the ministry. The Nurses Organisation came to me in about the middle of last year and said, “Look, they’ve got this nub of an idea. They’ve started it, but they don’t have the means to carry on. Could we work together on it?” I spoke to ministry officials. They checked it out. They thought it was fantastic. I looked at the material. I thought it was fantastic. The Ministry of Health and the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, working together, have produced an amazing product right throughout the development of it, and New Zealand Nurses Organisation representatives have been sitting on the steering group. They came up with the idea of engaging with Shortland Street to make sure that story gets to a group of people who probably, apart from today, don’t engage much with Parliament, for example, or the political process, but will want to, at an age when they are starting to make decisions about their future, engage with what future health careers look like. I’d urge those who are fans of Shortland Street to continue watching. There’s more to come.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Does the Shortland Street material he just stated he has looked at include a plotline with ballooning waiting lists and people waiting in leaky tents?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Once again, the member has misheard me. I talked about the Real Nurses material that has been developed. It is on the realnurses.co.nz website, which has some great information for those who are interested in a career in the health workforce, and I hope that there are many who are, because we need you. But it’s a good time now, if you’re a youngster, to be thinking about what you want to do. A health career is a great opportunity. Go to realnurses.co.nz. Carry on watching Shortland Street. You’ll find out a lot more.

Question No. 8—Economic and Regional Development

8. to the Minister for Economic and Regional Development: What recent announcements has he made on Government support for the regional economy?

During the recess, I had the very great pleasure to announce several new initiatives supporting the regional economies all across New Zealand. I announced the fourth, fifth, and sixth investments of the Regional Strategic Partnership Fund as well as a major investment from the Major Events Fund. The investments from the Regional Strategic Partnership Fund were a $6 million loan to a Southland-based oat milk producer, Functional Foods; a $1.75 million loan to a Levin-based sustainable timber manufacturer, Techlam; and $2 million investment of either a loan or equity stake in Rangitīkei-based sustainable plastic product manufacturer Plentyful. The investment from the Major Events Fund was an $8.1 million grant to support the delivery of six Crankworx Rotorua mountain bike events. It will also secure the future of up to 24 summer series events hosted across the South Island.

💬 Anna Lorck: What are the benefits of investments from the Regional Strategic Partnership Fund?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: The Government set up the Regional Strategic Partnership Fund to build more productive, resilient, and sustainable regional economies. For Functional Foods, we know we grow oats well in Southland, and their being low in water use, land use, and emissions means they are an excellent raw ingredient for an environmentally sustainable alternative milk option. Producing oat milk locally is a lucrative way to diversify our strength as a quality-food producer. Both Techlam and Plentyful are paving the way for sustainability in the high-tech industry. With their cutting-edge, environmentally friendly manufacturing processes, from framing for houses to paper packaging for pies, there are many products that can be made more sustainably and with a better fit for the circular economy, and these companies are at the forefront of this sector-wide shift.

💬 Anna Lorck: What are the benefits of investment in the Major Events Fund?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: We’ve held Crankworx events in New Zealand for the past seven years, and they have all been highly successful. The cumulative economic impact of the 2015-2021 events has been independently assessed at over $25.9 million, which doesn’t include the ongoing economic benefit of international visitors who spend on travel beyond the event. This funding will also support extended summer series events, which will help distribute social and economic benefits across our South Island communities—in particular, to Central Otago, Queenstown, and Wanaka. You’re welcome, Joseph Mooney, and I’ll see you there.

Question No. 9—Social Development and Employment

9. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with the Prime Minister that “it does matter to us as a Labour Government that we have people in the dignity of work”; if so, why are 55 percent more people receiving jobseeker support for longer than one year as at the June 2022 quarter compared to the September 2017 quarter?

I do agree with the Prime Minister. This is why we worked quickly to enact the wage subsidy when hit with a once-in-a-generation pandemic. This quick action protected jobs and stopped New Zealand from reaching the number of unemployed predicted by Treasury. We’re making good progress, with record numbers of people moving into work over the past 12 months. In the year ending June 2022, 30,200 people on jobseeker who had been receiving a main benefit for more than a year found work. This included 6,600 people who had been receiving support for three years or more. In 2017, these numbers were 14,500 and 3,960 respectively, showing our investment into front-line case management is working. Recently, I saw a news article where the Child Poverty Action Group said that our Government was too focused on getting people into work, and not on to child poverty reduction. We do not see those things as mutually exclusive. I acknowledge there is more to do, but we are certainly on the right track.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Can she explain why, when businesses across the country are desperate for staff, 50,000 more people are on the jobseeker benefit than when you came into office?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There are a number of reasons. I will say that, originally, Treasury had forecast we would have 487,000 people on benefit, and we certainly didn’t come close to that. In particular areas around the country, I do note that they have pointed out that there is difficulty in getting the staff they need. I was recently in Queenstown, and saw that that was certainly the case for the tourism and hospitality region. There are other contributing factors like, for instance, in that region, the ability to be able to access housing for those that might want to work there, and so that is one. There are other reasons as well, like the fact that we need to equip people with the right skills and training to be able to take up the employment that is available. I’m very proud of us as a Government because we have made those investments, and it will set us in good stead moving forward.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Why are more people on benefit for longer under her watch, despite Government spending on employment support doubling since 2017-18?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Despite the fact that we made the substantial investments through the wage subsidy, there were still a number of people that lost their job at the time. That did result in more people coming on to benefit and then needing to seek out support through the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and the case managers to be able to be redeployed or to find employment as quickly as possible. We worked with more numbers than we have had for quite a period of time due to the significant event that we’ve been faced with, but I’m very relieved with the fact that 2½ years after the pandemic hit, we are currently in a situation where we have 11 percent of our working-age population on benefit, when that compares to 13.2 or 13.5 percent 2½ years after the global financial crisis hit.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: What factors caused the increase in people on the jobseeker benefit in 2018 and 2019?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: That’s a very good question. What I found when I came into this role as the Minister for Social Development and Employment is that under the previous Government, there had been a steady decline—quite a significant decline—in the resource put into work-focused case management through MSD. Hardship had increased, but the Government had not funded the work focus required on the front line to be able to support unemployed New Zealanders into employment. We’ve rectified that. Year on year, we have continued to invest in work-focused case management on the front line, and we’re certainly seeing the results with that.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Does the Minister agree, at a time when many vacancies can be filled by on-the-job training, too many young New Zealanders are stuck on a benefit, and, if not, why not?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This Government has been considerably focused on young people and making sure that we provide them with the opportunities to take up employment. We see that with programmes like Mana in Mahi. We see that with programmes like Flexi-wage. We see that with our significant investment in apprenticeships, which has seen significant numbers of people take up apprenticeships. I’m also very heartened to see with the recent unemployment figures and employment figures that we now see Māori unemployment drop to record lows of about 5.5 percent, and for Pacific that’s 5.4 percent. We are certainly on the right track and focused on doing the mahi.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Why has the number of sanctions applied in the June quarter this year been at 50 percent lower than the same period in 2019, despite the number of job seekers being significantly higher?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We take a different approach to the previous Government. We are not punitive for the sake of being punitive. I was very clear from the outset when I took on the role of Minister for Social Development and Employment that culture change would be a priority; that when it comes to applying sanctions, they are applied carefully; that my expectation would be that front-line social development staff would actually make honest attempts to contact clients before applying sanctions, and traverse the reasons for why they may have done something like missed an appointment, because let’s keep in mind that that’s often why they are applied. I don’t apologise for the Ministry of Social Development making and taking a much more careful approach before taking the stick out and applying it to beneficiaries.

Question No. 10—Oceans and Fisheries

10. to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: Will he commit to further action in New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems, such as seamounts, in light of the United Nations workshop under way in New York and relevant United Nations resolutions, including 64\72, 66\68 and 71\123?

The purpose of the UN workshop is for States to have a technical discussion on approaches to bottom fishing and marine management. Here, Fisheries New Zealand and the Department of Conservation have established a multi-stakeholder forum on managing the effects of trawling on the benthic environment and New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone. Impacts on seamounts and seamount-like features are being considered as part of the forum deliberations. Following the forum and public consultation, the Government will consider whether to impose additional restrictions on bottom trawling in New Zealand waters.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Is he satisfied with progress made in protecting vulnerable marine ecosystems, when fisheries observers reported that commercial fishing vessels dragged up 29 different species and 8.9 tonnes of coral in their nets in the 2018-19 fishing year, which is likely to represent the destruction of much more coral on the seabed, and, if he is satisfied, why?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: There is no doubt that bottom trawling has adverse effects on benthic environments. We should be always striving to do better and we should be always doing better, and we should be doing all we can to both minimise the level of impact and to limit the geographic extent of it. That said, trawling is an integral part of fishing, not just in New Zealand but in many, many other countries around the world.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister agree that New Zealand’s approach of using a spatial model to manage bottom trawling effectively allows the fishing industry to smash and destroy unique assemblages of species and habitats on individual seamounts as long as there are other seamounts in the vicinity which aren’t trawled, and, if not, why not?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m not going to get into my opinion on the detail of that, because, as I’ve said in my primary answer, there is a multi-stakeholder process occurring around bottom trawling and seamounts, and I’m not going to prejudge the outcome before it’s concluded.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Does he agree with the statement in the 14 July 2020 report of the United Nations Secretary-General that “Given the importance of habitat-forming species and the high biodiversity associated with vulnerable marine ecosystems, it is likely that all VMEs contribute in some way to a range of important ecological functions in the deep sea, at least when assessed on a local scale.”, and, if so, why is his Government allowing deep-sea trawlers to smash and destroy corals and other marine life on some seamounts?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, I would need to consider that quote in a bit more detail. But at first blush, in respect of there being clearly local impacts of local trawling, that would seem to be axiomatic.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Is he concerned by the statement by the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor in her February 2021 report on commercial fishing that “Even decades after bottom trawling has been halted, there can be little to no recovery in a benthic community.”, and, if he is concerned, why has he failed to protect more seamounts and features in New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I did read that report. I have explained the work that we have going with a stakeholder grouping. I would also note that terrestrial environments are not totally protected either, and I don’t think it will ever be the case that all marine environments are protected either.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: If he doesn’t think that all marine environments should be protected, does he agree with Karli Thomas of the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, who likens New Zealand’s position of allowing some seamounts to be damaged or destroyed by bottom trawling to allowing Tāne Mahuta and Waipoua Forest to be bulldozed because there are other kauri forests left elsewhere, and, if not, what is the difference?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I don’t, and I certainly believe that protecting some seamounts from bottom trawling is better than not protecting them.

Question No. 11—Health (Māori Health)

11. to the Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health): What recent announcements has he made regarding the roll-out of Kaupapa Māori primary mental health and addiction services?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This morning, I was on Hongoeka Marae with health provider Ora Toa to recognise their new kaupapa Māori primary mental health and addiction service, Ngā Kete Aronui. This is a fantastic example of the value of by Māori, for Māori health services, delivering effective mental health and addiction support to whānau who need it, in a culturally competent way. We know that when these services are delivered in a way underpinned by mātauranga Māori, many whānau are more likely to reach out for support and have a positive experience in doing so. Ngā Kete Aronui is one of 29 new or recently established kaupapa Māori primary mental health and addiction services across Aotearoa, funded as a result of the Government’s groundbreaking Access and Choice programme.

Tāmati Coffey: How is the roll-out of these services progressing on a nationwide level?

💬 Hon PEENI HENARE: Over the past few weeks, I visited 13 of these new services rolling out across the North Island, Te Ika-a-Māui. From Waitematā to Wellington, Tai Rāwhiti to Tāneatua, it is a heartening experience seeing tailored, culturally competent wellbeing services being delivered by Māori, for Māori, and making a real difference. As I have said, we have now reached a total of 29 new services across Aotearoa since our commitment to taking mental health seriously in Budget 2019. From early 2020 until May this year, these growing kaupapa Māori primary mental health and addiction services have delivered more than 20,000 sessions for those with mild to moderate mental health and addiction issues. We know that Māori have struggled over the years to get meaningful, equitable support for their mental wellbeing, which is why we committed to funding these new by Māori, for kaupapa Māori mental health services.

Tāmati Coffey: What reactions has he seen to these new services?

💬 Hon PEENI HENARE: Recently, I visited the Poutiri Trust’s chief executive, Kirsty Maxwell-Crawford, and she said that the new Mataora service in the Bay of Plenty is a significant boost for supporting its work in the area of mental wellbeing. I quote: “It means we can respond to whānau in need, who have taken the brave step of reaching out for help. We have increasing numbers of whānau contacting us in times of stress, whānau wanting counselling or to access a Māori therapeutic service. Mataora allows us to be responsive to their needs”. Te Tihi o Ruahine chief executive Materoa Mar said that the new Te Ara Tōtika service in the central North Island helps “develop more connected pathways for whānau and stronger relationships between service providers” and the service is “a wrap around one connecting people with education, social, health, and wellbeing”. Nothing is compared to hearing the voices of those who have engaged with these services. Their stories are about getting support when they really needed it, and have been truly moving. I would encourage anyone listening out there to reach out for help to one of these services when they require it.

Question No. 12—Environment (Biodiversity)

12. to the Associate Minister for the Environment (Biodiversity): Does he stand by the exposure draft of the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity that objectives, policies, and methods developed under it “must, to the extent practicable: enable new occupation, use and development of Māori Lands”; if so, will he extend the same criteria to all New Zealanders with significant natural areas on their land?

In response to the first part of the question, yes. In response to the second part of the question, there are a number of variances in the Draft National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity for geothermal land, pastoral farming, forestry, and Māori land. The Government has not yet released the final National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity (NPSIB).

💬 Mark Cameron: Does the Minister agree that local authorities will be required to “apply options for offsetting and compensation” for Māori lands identified as significant natural areas?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: As I just said in the answer to the primary question, the Government has not yet released the final National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity.

💬 Mark Cameron: Will the Minister require local authorities to apply for options for offsetting and compensation to all New Zealanders with significant natural areas on their lands, and, if not, why not?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, the Crown has acknowledged responsibility for land dispossession through the Treaty settlements process, and I understand, actually, that the ACT Party has endorsed this process as it relates to the violation of property rights and the attendant economic impact of Māori who have been dispossessed of their lands. I am fascinated to find that the member is less frightened of variances in the NPSIB for geothermal purposes than he is for Māori purposes, and I wonder why could that be.

💬 Mark Cameron: Does the Minister stand by the statement made on his behalf in this House on 30 June that “existing land use will continue under these proposals.”, and can he give a guarantee to landowners that this will be the case?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: Yes, and yes.

💬 Mark Cameron: Does the Minister accept that parts of the Draft National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity give different rights to different groups of people, and when will his Government start putting the people and environment of New Zealand before its ideology?

💬 SPEAKER: Oh!

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: As I said, there are—

💬 SPEAKER: Well, no. Just—I am going to let the member answer the question, but I think fairly soon, a few members, and not only newer members, are going to need a bit of a seminar on supplementary question drafting. There might be a semi-employed backbencher soon who can give them a hand.

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: As I said earlier, there are a number variances in the Draft National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity relating to geothermal land, pastoral farming—which I would imagine that that member is quite interested in the variances for, as well—forestry, and for Māori land, and there are a number of very good reasons for that, which were outlined when we first consulted on this in the summer of 2019-20, and then again on second draft more recently.