Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: Mālō ni, Mr Speaker. What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Statistics New Zealand has reported that the New Zealand Activity Index, which is a broad and more timely measure of activity in the economy, is up 5.2 percent on September last year. Activity indicators are up in electronic card transaction activity, grid demand, heavy and light traffic movements, and job advertisements, together with a reduction in job seeker numbers. We know that this is a tough period for many New Zealand households facing cost of living pressures, but as I’ve previously said in this House, they do so while in paid work, which will also help ease the pressure they are under. The Government is continuing to support Kiwis through this difficult time through the fuel tax cuts, half-price public transport fares, and income increases for seniors, beneficiaries, and those on Working for Families.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What other reports has he seen on the economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, activity in the manufacturing sector is continuing to expand. The BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Manufacturing Index was at 52 in September. Production and employment rose while new orders declined slightly after a strong showing in the previous month.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What indications has he seen of activity in other sectors?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Activity in the services sector is also strong. The BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Services Index stood at 55.8 in September and above the long-term average of 53.6, with robust gains in sales and new orders.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What indications do these reports on manufacturing and services provide about the economy overall?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Combining the results of the activity in the services and manufacturing sectors, the composite index was at 54.4, and BNZ’s economists say that this result suggests that the economy grew about 1 percent in the September quarter.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: How do New Zealand’s activity levels for manufacturing compare globally?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, while activity in the services and manufacturing sector in New Zealand remains positive, activity in these two sectors fell in the United Kingdom, United States, and Europe. Globally, manufacturing contracted to 49.9 and services to 46.6. The composite index globally was 47.3 for the fourth consecutive month below the break-even mark of 50. New Zealand is as well placed as any country in what is a challenging global environment. Unemployment is at a near record low, wages are outpacing inflation to help deal with the cost of living pressure, our exports are growing, overseas tourists are returning, and the Government books are among the best in the world, with debt levels sustainably below those of the countries that we compare ourselves to. On this side of the House, we continue to face the future with optimism and don’t talk the economy down.

💬 Nicola Willis: Can the Minister understand that reciting statistics that allow him to pat himself on the back about the state of the economy makes absolutely no difference to the typical New Zealander who, in the past year, saw their real wages decline by 3.7 percent?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What New Zealand households know is they’ve got a Government that’s supported them all the way through COVID, from the wage subsidy scheme to making sure we lift the minimum wage, lift income support, and lift the family tax credit. In contrast, they have an Opposition who wants to cut tax for the highest income earners. Liz Truss might have gone in the UK, but she’s alive and well over here.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, in particular this Government’s ongoing support to workers and to Labour Day. Over the last year, we have increased the minimum wage, parental leave entitlements, and Working for Families tax credits. We’ve introduced legislation to end migrant exploitation, and we’ve taken steps to improve conditions for our Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme workers, our screen industry, and our bus drivers. This week will also see the passing of legislation for fair pay agreements to ensure our lowest-paid workers get a fairer deal. We’ve also taken action to ease the cost of living pressures on New Zealand, particularly those on lower incomes, through our temporary and targeted cost of living payment, fuel tax cuts, and half-price public transport. These—

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Where is the Prime Minister?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s a long-held convention in this House that we don’t make reference to the absence of members.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m guessing you’re talking about a member opposite you.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Speaking to the point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: Were you the member in question?

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: I was, and I was just asking a question—where the Prime Minister was.

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, no, no, no. I’m going to deal with this first, OK? So either the member did or didn’t refer to a member that is absent. Did he or did he not?

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: In the manner of a question, I did.

💬 SPEAKER: No, no. It’s either a yes or no answer. You either did or you didn’t. Did you?

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: I must have, yes.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, then the member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’ve also taken action to ease the cost of living pressures on Kiwis, particularly those on lower incomes, through our temporary and targeted cost of living payment, fuel tax cuts, and half-price public transport fares. These policies have also helped ease the inflationary impacts of the war in Ukraine and supply-chain disruptions, and supported New Zealanders. This Government backs workers and this Government backs Labour Day.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why are 100,000 kids chronically absent from school, and only 46 percent of Kiwi students attending class regularly?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As has been traversed a number of times in this House, the trend around absences from school began in about 2016. On this side of the House, we’ve released recently a strong plan to be able to address that, but also to address some of the underlying issues that sit behind reasons why some children aren’t growing up in households where that’s prioritised. Those things include things like lifting benefits, lifting the family tax credit—all of the things that the National Party have opposed.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why, after five years of this Government, can only 64 percent of secondary students pass a basic NCEA reading test?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On this side of the House, we’re very proud of the investments that we’ve made in education. We are seeing now the impact of having invested in teachers. But Mr Luxon can wave his hand all he likes; he has to own up for the fact that his party, when they were last in Government, consistently underfunded health, underfunded education—didn’t employ teachers, didn’t employ nurses. On this side of the House, we’re addressing that. It will take time, but it won’t be solved by tax cuts for the rich.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why, after five years of this Government, can only 56 percent of secondary students pass a basic NCEA numeracy test?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The problem the member on the other side of the House has is that he would currently fail a numeracy test when it comes to his budget, because he wants to cut taxes, he wants to lift spending, and he wants to reduce debt. That’s the member who should be worried about a numeracy test.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order. That was a question by the leader of the National Party about numeracy rates among New Zealand students. The Acting Prime Minister did not address that question at all; he simply abused the member asking the question. That’s not good enough.

💬 SPEAKER: You’re under the regime of robust question time. The way forward—

💬 Matt Doocey: Aw, come on!

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, you can complain if you like, but the way forward is to actually allow the member to answer. Now, this has been an ongoing issue, where the volume of interjections and the number of interjections are such that if you have a look at Speakers’ Rulings—yeah, well, you can smirk and laugh if you like—

💬 Matt Doocey: No, I’m smirking at him.

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s fine—means that answers are going to take longer, and, as I indicated last week when I said that if the House indicates to me that it’s actually not interested in the answer, then the Minister can address any part of it that he likes, or she likes.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order. I think my colleague Mr Seymour raises a good point. There could be no more straight a question than that asked by the Leader of the Opposition. It was a completely factual, straight question. Now, the ordinary rule has been if you ask a political question, you can get a political answer. Everyone in this House would agree that that was a highly political answer from the Acting Prime Minister, but it was a highly political answer in response to a completely straight, factual question. That’s what raised the disorder from this side of the House, because, as Mr Seymour says, it was, essentially, just a political show in response to a very serious, straight question. So I’d put it to you that the question was not even remotely addressed.

💬 SPEAKER: I stand by my ruling. However, I will allow the Leader of the Opposition to re-ask that question. Now, if the House is interested in the answer, I suggest that we listen to the answer.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order. I in no way wish to reflect on your ruling, but can I just make an observation that while—

💬 SPEAKER: No.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why, after five years of this Government, can only 56 percent of secondary students pass a basic NCEA numeracy test?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There are a range of different measures on the numeracy and literacy rates of our students. We will always seek to see more improvement on that. One possible explanation for the member’s question is that those students started school under the previous Government and we haven’t been able to recover them yet.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why, after five years of this Government, can only 34 percent of secondary students pass a basic NCEA writing test?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Again, there are a number of different measures of the success of both literacy and numeracy within our schools. We are continuing to invest in helping students who were failed by the previous National Government—for example, when they introduced national standards, or allowed the national Curriculum to not be implemented properly, and we’ll continue to support those students.

💬 Christopher Luxon: How does he expect Kiwi kids to succeed when, under this Government, two-thirds are not even being provided with the absolute basic reading, writing, and maths skills that they will need?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The reason why I think that New Zealand children will succeed under this Government is that we’ve been prepared to invest in more teachers in their classroom, in paying their teachers properly, in making sure that there is food in schools so they can actually learn and not just be hungry. The secret of success for children in our country is actually investing in and supporting them, not giving tax cuts to the highest earning New Zealanders, which is that member’s plan.

💬 David Seymour: How can the Acting Prime Minister claim the credit for those investments when he blames all of children’s failures at school on the previous Government?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I was doing was listing the investments that the Government’s made. The member has spent a lot of time criticising us for those investments. I stand by our record in having lifted 66,000 children out of poverty and investing properly in our education system and actually giving children a decent start in life.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Is this Government failing low-income families, when just 2 percent of decile 1 students are able to pass a basic NCEA writing test, meaning a shameful 98 percent failed?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does he accept that after spending $5 billion more per year on education and hiring 1,400 more staff at the ministry, attendance and academic achievement outcomes should be getting better or worse?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I will accept is that it is a long journey back for New Zealand, from a period of time where investment just was not made in our schools or in our teachers. We stand by the professionals in our classrooms who are doing their level best, and we’re addressing the underlying causes that make it more difficult for children to achieve in our classrooms.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Yes, in particular, the Government’s action that has helped more people move off the main benefit. September quarter benefit statistics released last week show that the number of people receiving a main benefit continues to fall, year on year. The Government has been relentless and deliberate in supporting more people into meaningful employment, education, and training. There are now 13,731 fewer people on a main benefit compared to September 2021, and the number of people receiving a job seeker work-ready benefit also continues to fall. With more people moving off the benefit and into work, unemployment at a near record low of 3.3 percent, and incomes growing at a higher rate than since records began, it’s clear that while there is more work to do, our plan is working.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Acting Prime Minister stand by his statement earlier in question time today, “New Zealand is as well placed as any country in what is a challenging global environment.”; and if he does stand by that statement, why does he suppose New Zealand lost a net 10,000 migrants for the last two years in a row, compared with gaining a net 30,000 a year on average for the previous two decades?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: With respect to the first part of the question, I do stand by my statement. With respect to the second part of the question, I know the member would like to wish COVID away. Unfortunately, when you’re in Government, you can’t do that. We have got our immigration reset in process, we are seeing more people come into New Zealand, and we are filling the skill gaps that we need to.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order. I just ask, I’ve heard members, particularly from Labour, shouting over the answer. Now, you’ve ruled that the Minister might not have to answer as fully in that circumstance. But I just ask you to reflect on the fact that it’s very unfair on the diligent and conscientious members of the ACT Party, who would like to hear the answer.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Which one?

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, I’m going to hear the end of this, and remind me to come back to you, Dr Webb. Have you finished?

💬 David Seymour: Yes, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: No, I quite agree with you; that shouldn’t happen. Members on the Government side should be aware of that—that when a question is being answered and there are no interjections coming from the ACT Party, in this case, then be careful that you don’t drown out the answer. Dr Webb, stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: I’ll give you an extra supplementary question.

💬 David Seymour: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Is the Acting Prime Minister aware that the COVID pandemic, being a pandemic, was global, and therefore it’s not a very good answer to suggest New Zealand is losing people because COVID happened here, when it happened in the countries the people are leaving to as well?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m glad the member has given me the opportunity to reflect on New Zealand’s COVID response. It is true that New Zealand’s COVID response included the shutting down of our borders in a way that other countries didn’t do. That decision saved thousands of lives, Mr Seymour, and I stand by it.

💬 David Seymour: Why does the Acting Prime Minister believe that twice as many New Zealanders are now telling pollsters such as Curia that this country is going in the wrong direction by a ratio of two to one; and does he think that those New Zealanders are just wrong and missed the memo on how well the Government’s doing?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I know that many New Zealanders and many New Zealand households are finding things tough at the moment, because we are living through significant cost of living pressures. That’s why, on this side of the House, we’ve invested to lift the incomes of those on benefits, of our seniors, our family tax credits through Working for Families, the minimum wage increases, and all of the support that we’ve given to businesses as well. The member might not appreciate that support. He might not have voted for that support, but on this side of the House, we understand it is tough for many households.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Acting Prime Minister think that daily reports of daylight robbery and violence in the street make it more attractive or less attractive for people to come to and remain in New Zealand?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: None of us like to see reports of crime taking place in New Zealand. We have seen, as Minister Hipkins and others have addressed in this House, spikes in youth crime. Police are being resourced to be able to deal with that. We now have at least 1,500 more front-line police than we had when we came into office—again, these are initiatives that have been opposed by the member’s party.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Acting Prime Minister think that increasing taxes by $22 billion, or 25 percent in the last three years—$7,800 extra tax per worker—has made it more or less attractive to stay in New Zealand; and if less attractive, when will this Government let people keep some more of their own money?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: When we look at the OECD’s definition of the tax wedge, which looks at the overall impact of tax which is paid by New Zealanders, I think we’re about 36th out of 38 when it comes to the OECD in terms of that rating. On this side of the House, we understand that it’s a balance between making sure that we tax New Zealanders fairly and we’ve got the resources to pay for our health system, and an education system and to invest in housing. It might be very, very simple in the member’s world, but getting that balance right is difficult and tricky, and I think the Government has done a good job of finding it.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Acting Prime Minister truly believe his Government is doing its best, and, if so, should we just accept rising prices, rising taxes, rising crime, and more and more people voting with their feet and leaving, some going as far as Antarctica?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I do accept is that New Zealanders have worked extremely hard over the last couple of years to put us in a position where we have 3.3 percent unemployment, one of the lowest in the OECD; one of the lowest levels of public debt in the OECD; an economy that’s nearly 5 percent larger than what it was before COVID came along; where we’ve lifted 66,000 children out of poverty; where we’ve lifted the minimum wage to make sure our lowest income people are supported. This has not been easy. There have not been any costless decisions, but this Government is proud of what we’ve done to support New Zealanders.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement this morning that “every government would want to be able to adjust those tax brackets and make sure that people do keep more of that money in their take-home pay”, and how much more tax does he estimate New Zealand wage and salary earners are paying today compared to what they paid five years ago?

I stand by my full statement, in which I went on to say, “we have to balance that against all of the needs we’ve got in delivering the health system”—that you’ve just been talking about—“delivering education, building houses, making sure that we provide all the public services [that] people rely on.” To answer the second part of the question, wage and salary earners pay a range of taxes, and it is not possible to separate instances like how much GST is paid by wage and salary earners when trying to provide a comprehensive answer for the member. However, I can advise the member that total personal income tax payments represented 41.6 percent of total tax revenue in the 2022 year just ended, compared to 41.5 percent of total tax revenue in 2017—that would be an increase of 0.1 percent.

💬 Nicola Willis: Why does he support a situation where a median wage earner in New Zealand today is paying more income tax than they were when Labour came to Government?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What we have to do, as every Government has to do, is find the balance between investing in the public services that we know we all need—the health system, the education system, the housing that needs to be built—along with what we ask New Zealanders to contribute through the tax system. As I said this morning, of course every Government would like to make the adjustments the member’s advocating for, but the member doesn’t seem to understand that when making those decisions, you have to balance that against investment in public services. It’s very clear the member doesn’t understand that, because the previous Government underfunded health, education, housing, social development. The Bermuda Triangle that the member is stuck in might be a pleasant place to be, but it doesn’t add up.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does the Minister think he’s getting the balance right when his Government increased Government spending by 16 percent in the past year alone while New Zealanders’ real wages declined by 3.7 percent?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member knows, because we’ve traversed this in the House before, when you take out the emergency COVID spending, the Government spending as a percentage of GDP was 30.9 percent. That is, effectively, the long-run average. The member might also recall that when her party was in office, following on from the Canterbury earthquakes, spending reached as high as 34 percent of GDP and then came down. We’re at 35 percent in the face of an even bigger economic shock.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does he agree with Australian Treasurer and Labor Party MP Jim Chalmers, who said, “We don’t want to make the situation worse by making inflation worse. And you do that if you spray too much money around.”, and why does the New Zealand finance Minister continue to insist he can spend his way out of the cost of living crisis?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have great respect for my friend and colleague Jim Chalmers and I wish him all the best for the Budget that he will deliver tonight. The member might want to reflect on the concept of spraying money around when she thinks it’s a priority right now to cut taxes for the wealthiest New Zealanders. Not even Don Brash thinks that’s a good idea.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does the Minister consider someone earning $60,000 a year to be rich, and, if so, why is it that that person today is paying far more tax if their wages have only kept pace with inflation while inflation continues to burn a hole in their pocket?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the member’s question, no. What I consider is that middle-income people in New Zealand have worked hard over the last few years, and the Government has stood beside them, helping them stay in work, helping them get through COVID, and investing in our public services.

Question No. 5—Conservation

5. to the Minister of Conservation: How has Jobs for Nature supported local communities with employment opportunities and conservation efforts?

Kia orana e te Vaa Tuatua. Jobs for Nature is continuing to provide our local communities with employment opportunities and conservation outcomes across New Zealand. Since 1 July 2020, over 4,000 people have been supported into employment opportunities thanks to Jobs for Nature. Across the Waikato, Maniapoto, and Coromandel regions, 14 Jobs for Nature projects will support up to 200 people into a variety of conservation work, which will see them upskill and focused on protecting our natural environment, biodiversity, and predator control. These grassroots projects go a long way in helping us reach the targets we set in 2016 to be predator-free by 2050.

💬 Dr Tracey McLellan: How is Jobs for Nature supporting communities in the Canterbury regions?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Six Jobs for Nature projects across Canterbury will provide employment opportunities for more than 70 people by establishing a network of coastline trapping, setting up a native plant nursery, undertaking restoration work and planting around Lyttelton Harbour, and increasing pest control across Banks Peninsula and Christchurch. This is important work that has been made possible through Jobs for Nature funding.

💬 Hon Jacqui Dean: Can she confirm that in Q4, the cost per job created by Jobs for Nature is now $140,000?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The member should recall that Jobs for Nature projects range across a four-year period and that costings for those jobs are scaled across that period. So in one quarter it may be higher than in other quarters when they may be lower.

💬 Anna Lorck: How is Jobs for Nature supporting communities in the Hawke’s Bay region?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Six Jobs for Nature projects across the Hawke’s Bay will provide up to 60 nature-based employment opportunities and go a long way to contribute to really ambitious conservation efforts across the region. Several of the initiatives are iwi-led, creating new opportunities for them to contribute their knowledge and skills while working towards shared conservation goals through planting, wetland restoration, maintaining tracks, weed control, and pest control.

Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki: How has Jobs for Nature supported local communities with job certainty?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Jobs for Nature has been instrumental in providing job certainty across New Zealand—

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: It’s a short-term scheme.

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: —particularly during the period when our borders were closed, Mr Goldsmith. In Queenstown, we’ve provided over 51 employment opportunities through the Tucker Beach reserve project, and in Auckland we have helped over 300 employment opportunities. These projects are required to pay at least the living wage and we have just celebrated Labour Day. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the fantastic front-line staff at the Department of Conservation, as well as the hundreds of workers supporting our natural environment through Jobs for Nature.

Question No. 6—Workplace Relations and Safety

6. to the Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Is she committed to progressing pay transparency?

Mālō li, Mr Speaker. Happy Tokelau Language Week. Our Government has begun work on pay transparency and remains committed to addressing pay gaps in Aotearoa. Earlier this year, we accepted in principle all the recommendations of the Education and Workforce Committee following their inquiry into pay transparency. Just last Thursday, my colleague Minister Tinetti and I announced that NACEW, or the National Advisory Council on the Employment of Women, will act as a national advisory group on pay transparency, that their remit will be expanded to include ethnicity as well, and that they will provide advice on what a pay transparency system that is fit for purpose for Aotearoa could look like. We know that there isn’t one silver bullet to addressing pay transparency, and that’s why we’re committed to taking a range of actions.

💬 Jan Logie: Is the Minister aware that the previous Minister for Women, Julie Anne Genter, also asked NACEW to progress pay transparency in 2017 and 2020, with mindfulness to the gap for Māori and Pasifika women, with research, best-practice case studies, promotion, as well as international updates?

💬 Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: NACEW reports to the Minister for Women and so that’s actually outside of my ministerial responsibility. But I do understand that the previous work focused on a preliminary question around whether a pay transparency system would be something that we should be looking at, and I think we all know the answer is yes.

💬 Jan Logie: What has changed since September 2021 when Traci Houpapa, the chair of NACEW, said, “NACEW supports the Human Rights Commission’s petition to include pay transparency in legislation.”?

💬 Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Once again, NACEW sits outside of my ministerial responsibility, but what we are doing here collectively—or jointly—is to look at the next level of detail. We’ve all agreed, based on what the select committee’s recommendations have been, that we should be progressing work to investigate what a pay transparency system would look like. There’s quite a bit of work that needs to happen at the next level to look at what that might look like for New Zealand.

💬 Jan Logie: What does she say to Mind the Gap’s Dellwyn Stuart, who said, “An advisory group is not enough to put more money in people’s wallets. We need much greater urgency.”?

💬 Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Again, as I said before, we are undertaking, on this side of the House, a range of actions to address pay gaps and to improve people’s pay and conditions. Just this week, for example, the work that’s being taken by Minister Wood around the Fair Pay Agreements Bill—once that legislation has passed—will contribute significantly towards lifting pay and conditions for workers in many sectors, many of which we see women and people from both Pasifika and ethnic communities overrepresented in. The employment action plans that this Government is progressing, or undertaking, across various population groups looks at issues around discrimination, diversity, and inclusion—yet another aspect that feeds into pay gaps. There is also work, for example: the 2020 amendment that was undertaken provides for a clear process for employees and unions to raise pay equity claims directly with employers rather than courts, making it much easier. The Public Service Commission is progressing work, and agencies will start reporting on the ethnicity pay gaps in addition to gender pay gaps from this year. There’s a range of work under way to address the issue that the member has raised.

💬 Jan Logie: Can NACEW draft pay transparency legislation?

💬 Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: NACEW will be the national advisory group to us on what a pay transparency system could look like in a way that is fit for purpose for New Zealand.

💬 Jan Logie: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it was a pretty specific non-political question, and it wasn’t answered.

💬 SPEAKER: It was addressed, though—can you ask the question again.

💬 Jan Logie: Can NACEW draft pay transparency legislation?

💬 SPEAKER: The problem is whether or not the Minister has ministerial responsibility for that. So I think she has addressed it, but perhaps not to your satisfaction. But none the less, it was still addressed.

💬 Jan Logie: Will the Minister commit to legislating for pay transparency as requested by the Human Rights Commission, women’s NGOs, significant business leaders, and the public?

💬 Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Minister Tinetti and I have committed to looking at what a fit for purpose pay transparency system could look like for New Zealand.

Question No. 7—Health

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

Yes.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Does he stand by his refusal to describe the New Zealand health system as being in crisis, despite recent tragic events involving emergency departments (EDs) and patients leaving without being seen because of the unacceptably long waiting times; if so, why?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I stand by the many statements I’ve made about this Government having inherited a health system that was desperately underfunded and under-resourced year after year by our predecessor Government, and I stand by the investments that this Government has made in health, increasing health funding by 45 percent in five years and setting up a $7 billion building programme to restore and replace many buildings, compared to the roughly $1 billion under the previous Government. This is a health system that is under immense pressure at the moment, and this is a Government that will continue to back it with investment and action.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Does the Minister stand by his response to written questions which show that in EDs in June this year, 540 people were forced to wait longer than 24 hours and 32 people had a wait time of 48 hours, and does he regret not paying attention to the warning letter last year from all of the DHBs?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I received no warning letter from DHBs last year, as that member well knows. In relation to those figures, I think what I can say is that our EDs are on the receiving end of record presentations this year—over 100,000 in June; over 100,000 again in August—and I stand behind and stand with the amazing health workforce that we have providing care to people, even those who are waiting long periods of time to get that care, and making sure that people get the care that they need.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Did long ED waiting times contribute to the recent tragedy at Christchurch ED, given reports that the person was triaged at level 3 on initial assessment, which has a maximum waiting time for medical assessment and treatment of 30 minutes, but they were not assessed for treatment until three hours later—well beyond the maximum 30 minutes?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m aware of some of the facts around the events in Christchurch, and I express my condolences to the family concerned. However, it is a matter that is under investigation by Christchurch Hospital, it’s possibly a matter that will be referred to the coroner, and I would prefer to wait until independent bodies establish the facts before drawing any conclusions.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: What does he say to ED specialist and well-respected spokesperson of the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine Dr John Bonning, who stated, “time for Health Minister Andrew Little to show leadership” and that he advised him to reintroduce hospital wait-time targets?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As that member well knows, we continue to have a measure for EDs. It is the short-stay ED measure of six hours and, currently, on a national basis, our ED system is performing at about 76 percent—or at least for the month of June—and that has been deteriorating since about 2012, according to the research. But one thing we won’t do is repeat what happened under the previous Government according to the 2019 research, which showed that targets were used to manipulate and dodge good treatment for people. We have an ED system that is providing care for people and a system that, having weathered the storms of COVID and one of the worst flu seasons ever, is providing the care for people that they need.

Question No. 8—Women

8. to the Minister for Women: What reports has she seen on progressing women in leadership in New Zealand?

Today, our Parliament and the people of New Zealand are celebrating that we have reached 50 percent representation of women in Parliament. With New Zealand leading the world with women winning the right to vote in 1893, it wasn’t until 1933 that we had our first female member of Parliament, and it has taken until 2022 that women finally have an equal share of seats in this House. I’d like to extend my warm welcome to new Labour MP Soraya Peke-Mason, who has joined us for the first time in the House today.

💬 Sarah Pallett: How has the 50 percent representation of women in Parliament been achieved?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: As a country, we can be proud of the representation we have here in this House today. With the two largest parties in the House having a 59.4 percent and 33.3 percent female representation respectively, we are moving in the right direction. I also commend the Greens, ACT, and Te Paati Māori for their efforts. The evidence points to the importance of strong selection processes, reducing discriminatory barriers, and concerted efforts to encourage candidates who represent the diversity of their communities or those who might not have run without encouragement.

💬 Sarah Pallett: What evidence has she seen on how to increase diversity and inclusion in leadership roles?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: Change requires leadership. For example, over four years ago, this Government set a target to reach 50 percent of women’s participation on public sector boards. We have not only met that target; we are also now at 55.8 percent of women holding senior leadership positions in the Public Service. Research also shows that we need to reduce barriers to female leadership, which is why initiatives seen in this House to support parents, combat misogynistic attitudes, and increase the number of women representatives are clearly making a difference—but there is more work to do.

💬 Sarah Pallett: How does New Zealand compare globally?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: According to the World Economic Forum, New Zealand is currently ranked number four in the world as the most gender-equal country, behind Iceland, Finland, and Norway. While this is great news, I know that many women in this country experience gender-based discrimination every single day. That is why this Government has prioritised critical work such as our pay equity legislation, which has seen seven claims settled and removed gender-based pay discrimination for at least 104,000 people. But as I have already said, there is still more work to do.

Question No. 9—Local Government

9. to the Minister of Local Government: What is the intent behind clause 141 of the Water Services Entities Bill, and do Te Mana o te Wai statements grant mana whenua rights beyond those of other groups to influence the activity of water services entities under her Three Waters reform?

Mr Speaker, mālō ni. Te Mana o te Wai’s statements enable communities to put the health and wellbeing of water catchments at the centre of decision making by involving mana whenua and councils on behalf of their communities, and can be practically implemented by each of the four water service entities.

💬 Simon Court: Why does this bill afford these rights only to Māori with an interest in fresh water and not to communities, businesses, and farmers who rely on fresh-water bodies for their livelihoods?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Te Mana o te Wai assumes an intergenerational commitment to our most precious resource: water. That’s important to Māori, it’s important to farmers, and it’s important to all communities. Design of mechanisms to give te mana o te wai need to carefully balance iwi, hapū, and whānau input with the need for water service entities to undertake investment activities to address the significant infrastructure deficit, and be consistent with the new economic regulatory regime. Designed well, these objectives need not be mutually exclusive. In fact, they benefit the whole community and can take account of green infrastructure solutions for improved health and environmental solutions—that’ll be good for farmers as well.

💬 Simon Court: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe the Minister addressed the question, which was specific: “Why does this bill afford these rights only to Māori with an interest in fresh water” to prepare Te Mana o te Wai’s statements? I don’t believe she’s addressed it.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I disagree with you.

💬 Simon Court: Does the Minister stand by her statement that “Māori have not expressed rights and interests in three waters assets over and above those as ratepayers”, and, if so, why is her bill only allowing Māori to make Te Mana o te Wai statements, with no limits on their demands, and to which water service entities are required to respond and give effect to?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: To the first part of the question, Te Mana o te Wai statements embody an intergenerational perspective to put the health and wellbeing of the environment, communities, and the public at the centre of its thinking. It is a different approach; it does come from what is already accepted and established in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020, and it does enable all communities to benefit from this perspective when we think about improved water service delivery.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Do Te Mana o te Wai obligations lead to exclusive outcomes just for Māori?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: No. Te Mana o te Wai responsibilities benefit the whole community and the environment by taking an intergenerational approach to the sustainable management and service delivery of water. When we consider how local implementation of Te Mana o te Wai objectives are implemented, we will observe a range of initiatives that support source protection; improving the catchment health of lakes, streams, and rivers; and, in water service delivery, could lead to further nature-based design solutions to improve waste water and stormwater designs.

💬 Simon Court: Based on that answer, that communities will benefit from iwi and hapū making Te Mana o te Wai statements, why can only iwi and hapū give Te Mana o te Wai statements?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Again, to the first part of the question, Te Mana o te Wai statements are developed by iwi mana whenua groups, but not for the exclusive benefit of Māori. In fact, it’s for the combined benefit of communities, the environment, and in the way that we think about the intergenerational challenge of looking after our most precious resource: water—everyone will benefit.

💬 Simon Court: Are spiritual beliefs, such as the existence of a taniwha on a bend in the river, permissible subject matter for Te Mana o te Wai statements, and, if so, why should taxpayer-funded entities be required to give effect to spiritual beliefs?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That member sadly mischaracterises the intent of Te Mana o te Wai statements, which are intended to be practical applications for the way in which we can look after the intergenerational obligations towards our most pressure resource, which is water. If I think about the way in which the principles informing Te Mana o te Wai can be adopted for everyone’s benefit—I’m informed by the national policy statement for fresh water—there are six main principles to take account of: mana whakahaere, the obligation of kaitiakitanga, manaakitanga, to ensure that governance includes everybody’s interests, long-term stewardship, and care and respect. I would faithfully hope that the member has sighted a Te Mana o te Wai fact sheet—that has been long held and put up on the website by the Ministry for the Environment. He chooses to ignore that information at his peril.

Question No. 10—Transport

10. to the Minister of Transport: Mālō ni. What recent announcements has he made about making it easier for New Zealanders to use public transport?

Last week, I announced that New Zealanders will soon be able to use a single payment system across public transport in New Zealand, whether they’re travelling on the bus, train, or ferry. The signing of the National Ticketing Solution (NTS) contract with supplier Cubic is a key milestone in the Government’s work to boost public transport use no matter where you are in the country. Local authorities also recognise the benefits of a single nationally consistent payment system, and the public transport authorities including Auckland Transport, Greater Wellington, Environment Canterbury, and a regional consortium of 10 smaller councils have all signed up to a participation agreement to deliver this solution. The NTS will increase public transport patronage, support our emissions reduction goals, and drive economic development right across Aotearoa.

💬 Arena Williams: What benefits will the new National Ticketing Solution offer for public transport users?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The NTS will make public transport easier to use for all New Zealanders. It will mean that Kiwis are able to use an existing method of payment like a touchless credit card, debit card, or a mobile phone payment method. It will mean that there is one way of paying for public transport in any part of the country. No longer will people have to have different cards depending on what city they’re in. And finally, the NTS solution will mean that whatever journey New Zealanders go on with public transport, they will automatically get the best fare. We’re bringing public transport into the 21st century with this piece of work—something the National Party could not accomplish in its time in office—and it will make public transport better for all Kiwis to use.

💬 Arena Williams: What responses has he seen to the announcement of the national ticketing solution?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The responses have been almost universally positive. Save Our Trains New Zealand said, “This is an excellent initiative that will make life easier for many”. Samantha Gain, General Manager for Metlink, said, “This is great news for our passengers who tell us that they want more and easier ways to pay across all modes of public transport”. Auckland Transport’s interim CEO Mark Lambert said, “This is a brilliant day for public transport users.” I’m not sure what Mr Luxon would say. He doesn’t think public transport should be subsidised.

💬 Arena Williams: What other work is the Government doing to support Kiwis to use public transport?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Government is committed to making it more affordable, easier, and attractive for Kiwis to use public transport. We’re doing that through investing in better public transport infrastructure right around the country: new, frequent public transport routes; the decarbonisation of public transport buses; better terms and conditions for bus drivers; and, of course, half-price public transport. This investment in the National Ticketing Solution is just one part of our Government’s commitment to better public transport, to make life easier for Kiwis, and to decarbonise transport.

Question No. 11—Education (School Operations)

11. to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations): What percentage of students achieved each assessment of the 2022 NCEA Literacy and Numeracy pilot, and can she explain why the results were lower than last year’s assessment?

Mr Speaker, mālō ni. As part of our maths and literacy strategy, we’re developing a standardised assessment for NCEA literacy and maths that all students will need to pass by the time they leave school. This is to ensure that all students leave school with essential maths and literacy skills fit for the modern world. The first pilot ran in 2021 and saw achievement rates of 67 percent in reading, 35 percent in writing, 65 percent in numeracy, 28 percent pāngarau, and 83 percent te reo matatini. The second pilot ran in 2022 and saw achievement rates of 64 percent in reading, 34 percent in writing, 56 percent in numeracy, 18 percent pāngarau, and 24 percent te reo matatini. This pilot was tested with small numbers of year 10 students, and the finalised assessment will become mandatory in 2024 for all school leavers. Results will vary, because the content of the assessment varies as we are still in the initial phases of developing it.

💬 Erica Stanford: Can she explain why, after five years of this Government, literacy and numeracy skills have continued to decline to the point where only a third of students have the foundational skills to pass this co-requisite requirement for NCEA?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: I’d point out to that member that it sounds like she is supporting the Government’s policy to bring in mandatory maths and literacy co-requisites. We acknowledge that literacy and mathematics were on a decline and started with the introduction of national standards back in 2008—of course, the six years, the majority of schooling, that these young people had was under that regime. The results of the pilot highlight the fact that maths and literacy results in New Zealand have been falling for well over a decade. That is why we’re taking urgent action through targeted maths and literacy strategies to make it clear exactly what needs to be taught and when it needs to be taught.

💬 Erica Stanford: In light of that answer, then, what specific initiative has this Government fully implemented and rolled out in the last five years in math or reading or writing to improve the numeracy and literacy of our 15-year-olds today?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: I’m pleased that that question was asked, and we do know that with the maths and literacy strategy, we are developing the common practice model which that Government failed to do and put the emphasis on to assessment rather than teaching to the curriculum. That’s exactly what we are going to do. We are having an evidence-based approach to increasing literacy and numeracy results in this country, rather than the failed experiment that that Government had, which they called national standards, which were neither national nor standard.

💬 Erica Stanford: In light of that answer, is the Associate Minister telling us that the only thing in terms of literacy and numeracy that they’ve fully rolled out in the last five years is a literacy and numeracy strategy that they wrote this year?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: That member fails to realise that the strategy that was written and launched this year has taken account of a lot of evidence that we have put into place in this country. What I would also say is I’m really delighted to be asked the question again. We’re rewriting a new, strengthened curriculum and introducing new NCEA maths and literacy standards. It’s a highly ambitious work programme to lift overall achievement, especially in maths and literacy. To support this, we have invested over $20 million in tutoring and catch-up learning sessions, which are well and truly under way in this country already. We’ve invested in over a thousand more overseas and domestic teachers to deliver this Government’s plan to lift achievement, far more than that side of the House ever did in their time in Government.

💬 Erica Stanford: Does she think that more students would have achieved numeracy and literacy standards if the Government had implemented measures to catch students up for lost learning in 2021 instead of waiting for term 4 this year?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: What that member has failed to remember is that we actually put that lost learning in place last year as well, when in November I made an announcement of $16 million to help catch those students up. We also have put extra support and money into The Correspondence School, which is now called Te Aho o Te Kura Pounamu to ensure that our students can get the extra support that they need over the summer catch-up time. The member has a very short memory.

💬 Erica Stanford: When she said in the news on Friday that “There is a cultural appropriateness that needs to be taken into account.”, can she give an example of the type of question in the pilot exams that she considers not to be culturally appropriate?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: We know that the number of students in these trials—we’ve had a number of Māori and Pacific students. We know by listening—listening—to the teachers who have been helping implement those programmes that some of those questions have not been appropriate. As a former teacher myself, I know that some of the examples that are used sometimes are not cognisant with a young person’s life and a young person might not be used to some of the experiences that we might even be used to, as people who are privileged to sit in this House. So that is exactly the sort of work that we are doing.

💬 Erica Stanford: Point of order. This question was quite specific around asking for an example of a type of question, and I don’t believe that was addressed in the answer.

💬 SPEAKER: I’ll give the member an extra question. You can either ask that again, or another one.

💬 Erica Stanford: Can the Associate Minister give this House one example of the type of question in the pilot exam that she considers was not culturally appropriate?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: What I can say is that there are questions in the exams that some of our young people don’t have the experiences in their background to understand. One of the responses that I will make to that member is that we have been very clear to our schools, at this stage, that we aren’t releasing in great detail the exam questions, because that could upset the nature of the pilot.

💬 SPEAKER: Question No. 12—Naisi Chen.

💬 Erica Stanford: Supplementary question because you gave me an extra one.

💬 SPEAKER: Sorry, you’ve run out of questions.

Question No. 12—Digital Economy and Communications

12. to the Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications: Fakafetai, Mr Speaker. What recent announcements has he made regarding accelerating the roll-out of 5G services across New Zealand?

Mr Speaker, mālō ni. Last week—more good news—I announced the Government is working with the major telecommunications network operators to accelerate New Zealand’s 5G roll-out and improve rural connectivity. Our three major mobile network operators—Spark, 2degrees, and Vodafone—will now be required to increase the pace of the 5G roll-out to small towns across New Zealand, in return for the spectrum that underpins their wireless technologies. There is also an expectation they will continue existing efforts to improve rural connectivity. This is good news for New Zealanders, especially those in our rural communities who stand to benefit from this new agreement through gaining access to the speed, capacity, and reliability of 5G services.

💬 Naisi Chen: Who will benefit from an accelerated 5G roll-out as a result of the direct allocation process?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This Government is committed to improving connectivity for those in rural communities. This has been a key focus of our negotiations with communications operators over the past few months. The accelerated 5G roll-out will target provincial and smaller towns across New Zealand so people outside of our main centres can also enjoy the benefits of this new technology. The speed, capacity, and reliability of 5G is expected to underpin a successful digital economy. I do look forward to announcing further details around the towns that will be targeted during this initiative and the number of people who will benefit, in due course.

💬 Naisi Chen: What reactions has he seen regarding the agreement?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Craig Young from the Telecommunications Users Association welcomed the announcement that the Government would be shifting from an auction to directly allocating spectrum. He said that users have historically ended up paying for auction revenue through higher user-charges. 2dgerees CEO Mark Callander said that the announcement is great news for Kiwis. Matthew Flood from Vodafone said that the Government’s proposal supports the pace for our investment in areas that would not otherwise see benefits of 5G in the near term.

💬 Naisi Chen: How does the agreement build on the Government’s current work to improve rural connectivity?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As of June 2022, Government investment in rural connectivity improvements has, amongst other things, provided faster broadband to more than 75,000 rural households and businesses under the rural broadband phase 2 programme. It’s provided mobile coverage to over a thousand kilometres of State highway, and coverage to nearly a hundred rural tourism sites under the Mobile Black Spot Fund. The proportion of New Zealanders with access to ultra-fast broadband has increased from 63 percent in 2017 to over 85 percent today. The agreement also complements other Government investment, including our $60 million manifesto commitment to improve rural connectivity allocated through Budget 2022, and the $47 million of rural capacity upgrades I announced in February 2022. I’m proud to be part of a Government which is improving connectivity for all New Zealanders.