Oral Questions

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

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why, despite hiring more than 1,400 extra bureaucrats at the Ministry of Education, are half of secondary students not able to pass a basic NCEA maths test, while two-thirds can’t pass a basic writing test?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I will not term public servants in that way. I will not call 2,900 additional teachers, employed since 2017, “bureaucrats”. I will not call those additional staff that we have supported to provide specialist education needs and coordination of specialist education “bureaucrats”. They are people on the ground supporting our learners. Having said that, of course, over the course of COVID, we have seen an impact on young people’s learning. It’s been seen internationally; it was a significant theme at the UN General Assembly. And that is why we have provided targeted support for learners, including catch-up support, as they head into their examinations.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that her Government has failed to deliver for low-income families, when a staggering 98 percent of decile 1 students can’t pass a basic NCEA writing test?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, I do not. And, of course, you can see from all of the targeted support that we have provided, in every case it has been about supporting those who have the least: our low and middle income families and, of course, their children. One of those projects—just one of them, for instance—has been free healthy lunches in schools, and I have had, on countless occasions, teachers and principals point out that that has improved, in some cases, the connection between their young people and school. Have we continued to see trends beyond New Zealand? Sure, around some of these issues, yes, but I absolutely refute the member’s suggestion that we have not worked hard to support those families.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Prime Minister been informed that the entire cohort of students that we’re talking about, who are struggling with literacy and numeracy, did the entirety of their primary schooling during the era of national standards?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: This is not the only situation, yes, where I’ve often had criticism from a National Government for outcomes that were actually generated for the previous Government. We had the same thing happen for a number of years on child poverty rates, when we were accused, actually, of being the ones who produced those stats when they were all generated because of lag times under National. We are happy to debate education, on this side, but we won’t be held to account for outcomes that were ultimately generated through nine years of National being in charge of education.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Has her Government also failed to deliver for Māori students, when only 38 percent could pass a basic NCEA maths test, and less than one in four could pass a basic writing test?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I refer the member to the same answer I just gave. If the member wants to stand up and be accountable to those families for the fact that they went through the education period under a National Government, let’s have that debate. The stats that we own are the lowest Māori unemployment stats this country has had; those are the stats we own. Half of the Māori unemployment rate during this economic crisis than under the global financial crisis; those are the stats we own. He Poutama Rangatahi, Mana in Mahi; those are the stats we own.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Can she confirm that since she took office, the proportion of students leaving school with at least NCEA level 1 has fallen for every single ethnic group, with Māori suffering the biggest drop in achievement of almost six percentage points?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: At this point, the member may wish to reflect on whether or not his line of questioning is helping him. I refer to the same answer. The stats have a lag, and that member needs to reflect on his Government’s record.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Prime Minister been advised that one of the reasons NCEA pass rates went up under the last Government is that they made it easier to meet the literacy and numeracy requirements in order to get it?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, and ultimately we need to make sure that our young people, when they go into the world, are genuinely prepared and that’s what we’re focused on.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why did the Government scrap the target for students leaving school with NCEA and does that explain why, after a decade of improvement under National, achievement has fallen across the board on her watch?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the member believes that every single outcome for a young person, for healthcare, for everything, is dictated by a target. Again, we’ve seen when that occurs—when you rule by targets—you see distortions and you see perverse behaviour. I’ll give you one example: on the occasion of that Government putting in targets in education around pass rates, schools stopped putting their children forward for exams. That was not the right approach, and yet that’s what those targets drove.

💬 Christopher Luxon: If the Prime Minister doesn’t believe in targets, why does she have them for child poverty?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, and I’ll stand by absolutely all of them because they have not produced distorted outcomes; they’ve produced investment in our young people. Because, when you measure child poverty, when you measure child poverty openly and objectively, then you drive change. When you create a distorted target that changes people’s behaviour, it means kids miss out.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Can she name one thing her Government has done in the last five years that has actually lifted literacy and numeracy?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member is willing to read any evidence, he’d understand that poverty is connected to educational outcomes, that employment is connected to educational outcomes, that decent housing is connected to educational outcomes. And on all nine poverty measures, we have reversed the increase so that our children, we know, are doing better in this country. We’ve put food in schools. We’ve put free period products into schools. We have increased Māori employment. We have changed the things that drive educational outcomes for our kids.

💬 Christopher Luxon: How can the Government spend $5 billion a year more, hire 1,400 extra staff, and actually deliver worse attendance and worse and declining academic achievement?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member can continue to speak to his own record in education, because that is what he is doing, but all I hear right now is that you wish to sack the extra 3,000 teachers, you wish to sack those coordinators we’ve put in for our kids with special needs, that you wish to sack or reduce the pay of our teacher aides, because that is where our money has gone.

💬 David Seymour: If the Prime Minister stands by her Government’s statements and actions, why does she believe people are voting with their feet as New Zealand loses a net 10,000 people a year compared with gaining 60,000 people a year on average for the decade prior?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We know that we are going to see a period of change post-COVID, with the borders opening. But my recollection is that we’ve had, for instance, in just a short period of time, I believe, about 16,000 working holiday visas enter into New Zealand. New Zealanders are likely doing the same.

💬 David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister accept that the net result of her Government’s policies over the last five years is that this country is losing a net 10,000 people a year where net migration has been positive for this country for practically its whole history?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It is frankly ridiculous, in a short period after having borders closed for the better part of two years, to make an assessment about the final net growth or net loss for New Zealand at this point in time. What I can tell you is that we have, for instance, currently 16,000 people who have arrived in New Zealand for our working holiday visas. We currently have 77,000 positions that are currently available for individuals to enter into New Zealand and take up work. I’m not going to take a snapshot in time in a huge period of flux.

💬 Hon Michael Wood: Can the Prime Minister confirm that there was in fact a net outflow of New Zealand citizens for every recorded month from the beginning of the year 2000 to early 2020?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Whilst I do not have specific numbers in front of me, yes, I would confirm what the Minister of Immigration would share.

Question No. 2—Conservation

2. to the Minister of Conservation: What, if any, options for protecting public conservation land from mining is she considering?

on behalf of the Minister of Conservation: On behalf of the Minister, our most valuable public conservation land is already protected from mining. Conservation lands listed in Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act include national parks, nature reserves, scientific reserves, wilderness areas, and wildlife sanctuaries. This prevents access from being granted to mine Crown-owned minerals on those land classifications and represents about 50 percent of all public conservation land by area. Additionally, the Government is undertaking significant work to reclassify a further 30 percent of conservation land via the stewardship land review. This covers 2.5 million hectares of stewardship land, and that is being considered for further protection. Progress is being made, and the Minister of Conservation will soon be considering final recommendations on the first phase of this process, which covers the West Coast, with that information due to the Minister by the end of this year.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Would adding public conservation land to Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act, as my member’s bill does, achieve the Government’s promise in the 2017 Speech from the Throne that there be no new mines on conservation land?

The Government remains committed to no new mines on conservation land. The member’s bill, though, goes a lot further than that and, also, effectively, prohibits mining on private land. It would also cut across more than four Treaty settlements, including the likes of mining pounamu, which does occur on conservation land.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Isn’t it true that the reclassification process will make a very limited contribution to protecting conservation land from mining, because only 12 percent of the stewardship land on the West Coast is recommended for status, such as national park, where it would be safe from mining?

No assessment can be made of that because the department is still considering the 6,000 submissions that were received, which will inform the advice that is due to the Minister before the end of the year.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Have large mines on conservation land, such as the former Globe Progress mine near Reefton and the Escarpment mine on the Denniston Plateau, harmed the conservation values which that land was set aside to protect?

Well, it depends on the project, but there can be no doubt that the extensive open-cast coal mining on conservation land did cause environmental damage.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Does the Department of Conservation’s experience monitoring 12 former mining sites on public conservation land and 12 current mining sites for potential ongoing pollution, as she noted in answers to written questions, suggest that reform is needed to limit mining activities which cause pollution on conservation land?

Well, reform is under way, including work that’s being done by the Minister of Energy and Resources in respect of the Crown Minerals Act. In respect of the monitoring of existing alluvial gold operations, those costs are recovered from the miners.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: For how much longer will members of the public who’ve recently stood with a “no mining” banner on conservation land in Coromandel, on the Denniston Plateau, and in Mount Richmond Forest Park—all areas subject to mineral permits—have to keep reminding her Government of the 2017 promise of no new mines on conservation land?

I’ve already explained that integral to achieving that problem is the reclassification of stewardship land.

💬 SPEAKER: Helen White.

💬 Helen White: My question is to—

💬 SPEAKER: Oh, sorry, I thought you had a supplementary.

Question No. 3—Finance

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

The growing economy is working for women, Māori, and Pacific peoples. The employment rate for women rose to 64.9 percent, the highest rate since the series began. Unemployment rates for Māori and Pacific peoples are nearly at historic lows, at 6.8 percent and 6.4 percent respectively. Many New Zealand households are finding it tough in the face of cost of living pressures, but they are in a better position to deal with this by being in work. Unemployment is at near record lows, more people than ever are in paid work, and wages are rising faster than inflation to help deal with cost of living pressures.

💬 Helen White: What reaction has he seen to the impact of a strong labour market on the economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: ANZ’s economists said that our “extraordinarily strong labour market means households are, on average, starting from a good place when it comes to income growth and job security”. They are forecasting a steady decline in inflation, from a peak in the June quarter and with positive real wage growth improving from here. This will help New Zealanders with cost of living pressures.

💬 Helen White: What reports has he seen on lifting skills in the economy to address workforce pressures?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’re continuing to invest heavily in skills and training, with over 215,000 New Zealanders benefiting from our Government’s move to make apprenticeships and targeted trade training free. The immigration reset is attracting overseas workers to get the skills and expertise businesses need. More than 35,000 working holiday visas have been approved to support our tourism and hospitality industries as they approach a bumper summer season, and more than 78,000 job checks are being completed, ready for work visas to be granted.

💬 Helen White: What other reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The retail card spending data was released today. It remained resilient in October. Stats NZ reported that seasonally adjusted retail card spending rose 1 percent in October, compared with the previous month. Spending on durables, such as furniture and whiteware, rebounded this month. Stripping out fuel costs, core spending rose 0.9 percent. ASB’s economists said that this spending remains solid, supported by more people in work and decent income growth. However, forecasts for the global economy are being revised downward, and this will affect New Zealand’s prospects. New Zealand is well placed to be able to navigate this volatile and uncertain environment.

Question No. 4—Justice

4. to the Minister of Justice: Does she agree with reports that the managing director of Cultural Reports NZ said that “even if a report costs up to $6,000, if it leads to a lengthy prison sentence term being reduced by say, a year, the fiscal benefits alone are huge”; if so, is prioritising fiscal benefits over victims consistent with a “victim-centric approach”?

To the first part of the question: the managing director of Cultural Reports NZ does not, of course, speak for the Government. However, I do agree that taxpayers—rightly—expect fiscal responsibility for Government spending. To the second part of the question: no, and that is not what the Government is prioritising.

💬 Nicole McKee: How can the Minister claim that she is taking a victim-centric approach when costs for commissioning cultural reports increased from around $865,000 in 2019 to more than $6 million in 2021, while she stated in response to my oral question on 22 June that only $5 million had been given to victims in the previous year?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Two parts. To the first, the policy hasn’t changed since 1985. Cultural reports have made up a part of our criminal justice environment since 1985 and carry through to 2022. Secondly, what I’d say to the member is that this Government has doubled the support for victims since the previous Government, and we are continuing that support again in 2022.

💬 Nicole McKee: Does the Minister believe that section 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002 takes a victim-centric approach when it enables offenders such as the pair of Mongrel Mob members who ran a major meth operation in September to commission a cultural report to receive a discount of between 10 and 30 percent off their sentence?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I refer to my previous answer. Cultural reports have made up a critical part of New Zealand’s criminal justice process since 1985—nothing has changed.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is it not the case that the justice system under her Government is more offender-centric than victim-centric and that to young ram-raiders it offers more excuses than consequences, and, if so, what is she going to do about it?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I refer to my answers in the House just yesterday. This side of the House has introduced new offences that prioritise victims, for example, in circumstances of sexual and family violence. Over $1 billion has gone into ensuring that victims of these particular types of crime are supported. This side of the House has doubled the funding available to victims. So, no, I disagree with that member’s proposition.

💬 Nicole McKee: Is the Minister convinced there is a need for section 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002, considering that section 8(i) requires the court “must take into account the offender’s personal, family, whanau, community, and cultural background in imposing a sentence”, and, if so, can she explain why this taxpayer spend is necessary when the Act already requires these factors to be considered?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: As I have previously stated, section 27 has been a part of the Sentencing Act since 2002, which was a carry-over proviso from 1985. Additionally, I will note that these reports are one of many factors that any sentencing judge takes into consideration at sentencing.

💬 Nicole McKee: What cause does the Minister think is more worthy of spending $6 million of taxpayer money on: giving victims of crime their due reparations, or commissioning cultural reports in exchange for reduced sentences?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: On this side of the House, that’s a fundamentally flawed proposition. It’s not an either/or. Cultural reports make up a part of our criminal justice process, as does supporting our victims, and this side of the House will continue to do that.

Question No. 5—Energy and Resources

5. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What actions is the Government taking to make fuel markets more resilient, sustainable, and competitive?

This morning, I announced a suite of measures to increase New Zealand’s fuel supply resilience and sustainability, and to ensure there is adequate competition in the retail fuel market. We’re implementing the planned onshore fuel stockholding requirement, delaying the implementation of the sustainable biofuels obligation by one year, and introducing a regulatory backstop to protect consumers.

💬 Rachel Brooking: How does the onshore fuel stockholding increase New Zealand’s resilience to international fuel supply shocks?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We are improving New Zealand’s fuel supply resilience with new onshore fuel stock obligations for the fuel sector as well as Government-procured diesel storage. The initiatives announced today enhance our resilience in the unlikely event of supply chain interruptions at no additional cost to consumers.

💬 Rachel Brooking: Has the Minister received advice on the impact of the refinery’s closure on New Zealand’s fuel supply resilience, and what is that advice?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes. The advice points out that New Zealand’s fuel supply has always been reliant on imports, and that Marsden Point refinery was configured to refine imported heavy crude oil. It also says the refinery’s closure improves our supply chain resilience—for example, there are more frequent shipments of refined fuel from diverse sources. Our decision to hold more fuel onshore further insulates the economy and consumers from supply chain shocks. As a result of our fuel resilience, New Zealand will now hold 28 days of diesel consumption—compared to 20 days before the refinery’s closure—24 days instead of 17 days of jet fuel, and 28 days instead of 26 days of petrol.

💬 Rachel Brooking: How is the Government responding to cost of living concerns through the fuel initiatives announced this morning?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We know many households are struggling with the increased cost of living, which is why we’ve cut fuel excise duty, road-user charges, and delivered half-price transport for all New Zealand. This morning’s announcements to delay the implementation of the sustainable biofuels obligation further shields consumers from potential increased fuel costs while giving more time to the fuel sector to implement the changes.

💬 Rachel Brooking: How will delaying the implementation of the sustainable biofuels obligation impact the Government’s climate commitments?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The delay doesn’t change the emissions reductions that would have occurred, because fuel companies were preparing to pay the fines rather than meet the first year of targets amid the current global fuel conditions. The shortfall from the first year’s targets will be made up by increasing the emissions intensity limits for fuel in ongoing years, and other emission reduction opportunities such as our successful Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund programme which is decarbonising the industrial heat sector. This pragmatic decision gives the sector more time to build the infrastructure needed for lower-cost, sustainable biofuels such as ethanol.

💬 Rachel Brooking: What else is the Government doing to ensure our fuel markets are competitive and delivering fair prices for New Zealand consumers?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government has already implemented a number of changes resulting from our market study into retail fuel to secure a better deal on fuel for consumers, including improving monitoring of the market and increasing transparency of fuel company margins. Our next step is giving the Commerce Commission the ability to investigate, intervene, and potentially set fuel prices at terminals if they determine the market is not operating competitively.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement about the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund that “The Fund is not there to be used for any old project in the never-never. It is to provide support and stimulus to recover and rebuild from COVID-19”; if so, does he support the draw-down and redirection of $72.3 million to help cover unfunded Department of Internal Affairs three waters work?

In answer to the first question, which is with regards to a statement I made in July 2020, yes. To the second part of the question, the member is incorrect in her description of the funding. In July 2020, a tagged contingency of $710 million was established for three waters infrastructure and investment and a service delivery reform programme within the COVID response and recovery fund—this included provision for policy work on the programme. In April 2022, when that 2020 tagged contingency was coming to an end, $72 million was allocated to programme costs. I would note, at the same time, $12.4 million was returned to the centre.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does the Minister recall a Cabinet paper seeking agreement to reallocate $72 million of the unallocated portion of the three waters infrastructure investment programme for policy advice, and can he advise the House how spending $21 million of taxpayers’ money on three waters policy advice and communications activity helps the New Zealand economy recover from COVID-19?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we’ve discussed several times in this House, the member knows that the COVID response and recovery fund was designed to make sure that New Zealand could respond to COVID and recover from COVID. Part of that is making sure that we stimulate economic development in the regions. That includes, I might say, through the three waters programme, 291 kilometres of drinking-water pipes, 159 kilometres of waste-water pipes, and 128 upgrades to waste-water treatment plants all over New Zealand. The three waters programme, overall, will contribute to a significant number of jobs being created in New Zealand—something I know the National Party has difficulty with.

💬 Nicola Willis: How does spending $14.6 million of taxpayer money on supporting iwi Māori to participate “in the three waters service delivery system” help the New Zealand economy recover from COVID-19?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I’ve just said in my previous answer, the three waters reform programme is part of economic development right across New Zealand. I appreciate that the National Party doesn’t want iwi and Māori to participate in the New Zealand economy, but on this side of the House we think that’s a good idea.

💬 Nicola Willis: Why did he take $3.6 million from the COVID fund and spend it on the Future of Local Government Review, and is this what he thinks New Zealanders expected would most help the recovery of the economy from COVID-19?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I think most New Zealanders expected would happen in terms of the recovery from COVID was that the Government would spend around $26 billion supporting employers to be able to keep their staff on, around $13 billion supporting small businesses with low-cost loans, around $10 billion for the health sector to be able to respond to COVID, around $5 billion for business and science and innovation support, around $4.7 billion to support people in housing, around $2.85 billion to support the education sector, around $1.85 billion to support the transport sector to keep going. The vast bulk of the COVID-19 fund was spent directly on things related to recovery; some was spent on response. The member has many colleagues who asked us to spend a lot more money, in COVID, on other things.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does he think it’s prudent for the Government to be spending $2.1 million on a swanky Freemans Bay office for the hundreds of consultants and staff hired to work on three waters reforms, and could he tell the House whether this will also help with recovery from COVID-19?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I know that the National Party think that if a difficult problem comes along, the answer is to kick the can down the road: not deal with the massive rate increases that New Zealanders will have if we don’t solve three waters; not worry whether people have good quality drinking water; not worry whether our waste systems work. It’s all in the power of the National Party to say, “We’re going to kick that problem down the road.” We’re facing up to it; we’re making sure those reforms happen so New Zealanders don’t have to pay so much for their rates, for their water. National might not care about that; we do.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does he recall stating, in relation to the COVID fund, that, “We are sticking to our word on this. We are investing money where it is needed to respond to COVID-19.”, and does he recall whether, when he said those words, he was anticipating dipping in to the COVID fund so he could avoid public scrutiny for throwing yet more taxpayer money at his unpopular three waters reforms?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I stand by the record of this Government of getting New Zealand through COVID, of saving lives and saving livelihoods. The fact that we spent $26 billion supporting New Zealand businesses has helped New Zealand have an unemployment rate of 3.3 percent. The fact that we spent that money supporting small businesses means that they didn’t go out of business. The member might not like it, but the Government’s record on getting New Zealand through COVID is an excellent one that all New Zealanders should be proud of.

Question No. 7—Social Development and Employment

7. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What updates has she seen on the take-up of the Training Incentive Allowance?

The Government’s Training Incentive Allowance (TIA)—which was a manifesto commitment and reinstated as part of Budget 2021—has had an overwhelming response, with an over 600 percent increase in uptake from 1 January to 30 June 2022, compared to the same time last year. Since the allowance’s reinstatement, 4,848 people have been supported, 90 percent of recipients are female, just under 80 percent are sole parents, 42 percent identified as Māori, and 7 percent as Pacific. Almost three-quarters of TIA recipients are in courses level 4 or higher—for example, certificates, diplomas, and bachelor’s degrees.

💬 Terisa Ngobi: Why is the Training Incentive Allowance important?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Training Incentive Allowance is one tool amongst many in our Government’s tool box that we are using to support people off benefit and into work. The additional benefit of the Training Incentive Allowance is that it is a tool that is also supporting people into jobs where there are skill shortages. The reports to date show that the majority of recipients are going into social service areas, including nursing, midwifery, and social work. This is great for the beneficiaries and their families but also a fantastic win for our workforce.

💬 Terisa Ngobi: What work has been done to make sure people know this support exists?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Ministry of Social Development have been running promotional campaigns on the allowance and working hard to ensure people know where and how to access it. They’ve also sought to make the application process more accessible for clients with processing standards made permanent to create a more seamless interaction for those wishing access the allowance. Our Government is all about putting ladders in place; not pulling them up behind us.

💬 Terisa Ngobi: What other updates has she seen on people being supported into employment, education, or training?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: It’s pleasing that last week’s household labour force survey shows that unemployment remains at a near-record low of 3.3 percent in the September quarter. Particular highlights also include a big growth in Pacific employment, with over 25,700 more Pacific people in employment compared to a year ago; youth employment increased strongly, the NEETs rate fell by 0.7 percent; Māori unemployment remains low; and jobseeker work-ready numbers continue to fall quarter on quarter. We absolutely know there is more to do, which is why through our suite of employment initiatives such as Mana in Mahi, He Poutama Rangatahi, Māori Trades and Training Fund, Flexi-wage, and Apprenticeship Boost—to name a few—we are doing just that.

Question No. 8—Health

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

Yes.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Why does his interim health plan say it will take another two years to get the full benefits of the health reforms, given it has already been nearly two years since he announced them, and tens of millions of Ernst & Young consulting dollars?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Recently, we released the Interim New Zealand Health Plan, that was prepared by Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand, and Te Aka Whai Ora - Māori Health Authority. That plan follows the current funding cycle, which was a two-year funding cycle following this year’s Budget, and in preparation for the next New Zealand Health Plan, which will be a three-year health plan, following a three-year funding cycle in Budget 2024. The Public Health Service is a service that covers 30 hospital campuses, about 80,000 health workers—anything from senior clinicians, to doctors, to nurses, to healthcare assistants, to allied health workers. In addition to that, it’s also the service that funds much of primary and community care. This Government inherited a health system that was in desperate need of change. We’re changing it, and it will take time.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: What does he say to the chair and chief executive of the Rural Health Network and the college of GPs, who say his interim health plan is disappointing, and that the plan fails to deliver on how a sustainable rural workforce will be delivered?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I refer that person to the specific aspects of the interim health plan that talks about rural health needs and the development of a rural health strategy, and I look to the experience that we all saw for ourselves at Taupō Hospital when we release the plan and the difference that adding a CT scanner made to that hospital and to the wider district and to access to healthcare for more rural people—access they had not hitherto seen.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: What does he say to an associate professor of health policy at Auckland University, who suggests his interim health plan is virtue signalling and light on detail, and concludes, “In two years, if we were to ask how do we know things are going to plan, I don’t know if there’s anything in there that would help us answer that question.”?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The interim health plan sets out around about 120 different tasks that are part of the process to turn around a health system that has been underfunded and under-resourced for far too long, and not delivering on the health needs for New Zealanders. I stand by the plan that’s prepared by the senior clinicians and other experts from Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand and Te Aka Whai Ora - Māori Health Authority.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Why is it that with nearly every wait-list target being the worst on record, the only targets in his interim health plan are emissions targets?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: In addition to this Government inheriting a health system that had been underfunded and under-resourced for many years, we also inherited a health system that was not achieving for New Zealanders what it should do, which is improved equity and improved access. That is what the health plan seeks to do. It is an interim health plan; as the large and difficult job of creating a health system capable of allocating its resources properly and fairly and efficiently right around New Zealand starts its journey.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: What actions did he take around the health and safety provisional improvement notice issued two weeks ago by frustrated staff at North Shore Hospital, who said that the emergency department (ED) was at critical overload, unsafe, and that patients and staff could be harmed; and were any actions he took clearly ineffective, given reports of an innocent bystander being seriously assaulted at the very same ED last night?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The responsibility for responding to those improvement notices is the responsibility of Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand management. They are in receipt of those notices. Where those notices have been issued in other hospitals around the country, it has resulted in engagement between WorkSafe New Zealand and the hospital management, and I expect the same will happen in relation to North Shore Hospital.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: What does he say to the Australian and New Zealand college of ICU specialists, who ask, “What work is he doing to expedite the immigration entry of ICU nurses that are required to open recently funded ICU beds?”

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, I’m glad that member has drawn attention to the significant additional investment that this Government has made in our ICUs: $100 million for capital spending; over $500 million to recruit the additional staff over the next four years to run them. What I’m very pleased to tell the House is that since 1 January this year, 1,266 internationally qualified nurses have arrived in New Zealand to pick up their work. They’ve arrived here under two visas: the critical purpose work visa and the accredited employer work visa. I can say that a total of 3,510 overseas qualified health workers have arrived since 1 January to work across our health system—public and private—and I can say that just in relation to the accredited employer work visa, 471 of those visas have now been approved. We are attracting nurses to work in New Zealand, including critical healthcare nurses, and we will continue that programme to fill the vacancies, because this is a Government that has funded 5,000 additional nurse positions in our hospitals. We’ll continue to fund more as we rebuild the health system that when inherited was left in such an appalling state.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: How many nurses have left New Zealand in exactly the same time frame that he has just quoted?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, nurses come and go. What I can say is we have more nurses employed right now than we did as a matter of just some months ago. The reality is, this is a Government that does not turn its back on the health system, does not turn its back on the mental health system; and a health organisation—Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand—that is focused on what needs to be done to rebuild our health system.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Who is correct: the chair of Health New Zealand, Rob Campbell, who told Heather Du Plessis Allan last week that there are multiple crises in the health system; or the Minister, who still denies there is a crisis?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That member continues his long-track record of simply getting things wrong and he did it again just now.

Question No. 9—Transport

9. to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcement has the Government made about the bus driver workforce?

Last week, I announced that the Government is investing $61 million allocated in Budget 2022 to help standardise and improve wages and conditions for bus drivers across New Zealand. We know that having drivers in place to provide reliable bus services is critical in supporting people to get on to public transport—that’s why we’re investing to ensure that the industry, local councils, and unions work together to transition the industry to higher base rates of $30 per hour for urban drivers and $28 per hour for regional drivers. I’d like to thank those members of the Bus Driver Conditions Steering Group, including unions, employers, and councils, for their ongoing work to build consensus around improvements to driver terms and conditions.

💬 Shanan Halbert: How will the funding that he has announced impact the bus driver workforce around New Zealand?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: We know that wages and conditions for bus drivers vary widely around the country. The $61 million allocated in Budget 2022 will support the sector to move towards more common industry standards for wages and conditions across New Zealand. Local councils and operators will be able to access a share of funding if they also contribute, to ensure that all players in the system are putting money on the table to improve pay and conditions. This will help us to progressively reach an industry standard of $30 per hour for urban services and $28 per hour for regional services, which will make the sector a more attractive place for people to work.

💬 Shanan Halbert: What other work is the Government doing to improve terms and conditions for the bus driver workforce?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Along with the focus on standardising wage rates in the immediate term, we’re also working with councils, operators, and unions to lift wages and improve a range of working conditions in the medium term. This includes looking at overtime rates, split shifts, and other ways of making bus driving a more attractive place to work in, so that we can retain and attract the workers that we need. We know that improving the conditions of drivers will make it easier to do this, meaning that New Zealanders will be able to enjoy more frequent and reliable bus services in the years to come.

💬 Shanan Halbert: How do these improvements to bus driver terms and conditions fit with the Government’s broader work to improve the reliability of public transport?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The improvements that we have announced through our additional $61 million investment will be supported by the creation of a Sustainable Public Transport Framework, which I announced in August, which replaces the previous Public Transport Operating Model (PTOM), which had driven down pay and conditions for bus drivers across New Zealand. The new Sustainable Public Transport Framework, along with value for money, prioritises fair and equitable treatment of employees, mode shift, and improved environmental and health outcomes in the sector. We know that the race to the bottom caused by PTOM was one of the root causes of the bus driver shortage that we face and we’re having to clean up today. Our Government recognises the vital role that public transport has in our everyday lives and in our economic and environmental future.

Question No. 10—Police

10. to the Minister of Police: How many, if any, businesses in Hamilton have had assessments completed under the Retail Crime Prevention Programme, and of those, how many have had installations of protective equipment completed, if any?

I’m advised that as of 9 November, New Zealand Police has visited at least 18 stores across Hamilton as part of the Retail Crime Prevention Programme. Sixteen of those stores are eligible to receive assistance under the programme and they’ve had their assessments completed. Twelve of those stores have had quotes received and approved for protective equipment. Additional quotes are due to be received. My understanding is that none of those businesses have had the work completed at this point. Hamilton City accounts for around 15 percent of all of the jobs that have been assigned to contractors as part of the programme to date.

💬 Dr James McDowall: Is he aware that businesses in Hamilton with more than two physical stores have been told by Police that they are ineligible for funding, despite having been the victims of repeated ram raids and smash and grabs, and, if so, is this consistent with the intent of the programme?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The intent is to support small retailers. One of the things that the Police do take into account in conducting their assessments is whether or not a business qualifies as a small retailer. The range of criteria include the number of staff they employ, and it also does include the number of different outlets that they have.

💬 Dr James McDowall: Will the Minister consider enabling the retail crime prevention programme to reimburse ram-raided businesses who have had to privately source and install protective equipment, considering the delays or non-existence of getting protective equipment put in?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Reimbursement’s not currently part of the programme.

Question No. 11—Broadcasting and Media

11. to the Minister for Broadcasting and Media: Does he stand by all the Government’s views and actions regarding Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media?

Yes. In particular, I stand by the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday—

💬 Chris Bishop: Your statements—the Minister’s statement; not the Prime Minister’s.

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —referring particularly to TVNZ, that as audiences decline, advertising revenues decline, which means our ability to have public broadcasting declines, Mr Bishop. That’s why we are investing now to ensure that New Zealand’s public media remains strong and accessible to all New Zealanders into the future.

💬 Melissa Lee: Does he accept, when his officials state—and I quote—“The Government … will significantly increase Crown funding for the entity to $200 million annually” and “This is half of ANZPM’s total estimated yearly operating budget of $400 million.”, this means Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media (ANZPM) will cost taxpayers at least $1 billion every five years in new spending over and above the $109 million of new money injected per year over the next three years?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, I don’t accept that at all. The member is talking absolute nonsense. The set-up costs for the entity are only $40 million over four years. I suggest she reads what we have said about this constantly over the last month or so.

💬 Melissa Lee: Can the Minister confirm that, according to the business case for the merger, Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media will have permanently decreasing revenue and increased costs to the Crown over and above the $370 million budgeted this year?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The business case was speculative. It’s just speculating. As Mr Luxon knows, business cases look at some of the worst scenarios. So I can confirm that the business case, yes, talked about that, Melissa Lee.

💬 Melissa Lee: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister did actually tell this House on 27 October that he will actually have those figures on hand and that he will provide it. And I’ll quote him: “I’ll have to come back to the member on that.”

💬 SPEAKER: That’s fine, but what’s your point of order?

💬 Melissa Lee: Well, he should have the figures.

💬 SPEAKER: Remind me what the actual question you asked was.

💬 Melissa Lee: He needs to confirm whether those figures are in the business case.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, then don’t tell me. Do you have another supplementary?

💬 Melissa Lee: I do, sir. What will the cost of Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media be to New Zealand taxpayers over the next 30 years, as costed in the business case, and is it over $6 billion between financial year ’27 and financial year ’51?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Again, the member is getting all her figures wrong. She’s mixing up the $6 billion that the National Party are giving to their rich mates, in terms of the tax cuts.

💬 SPEAKER: That’s out of order.

💬 Melissa Lee: Do you want me to ask again?

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, I’ll give you two additional supplementaries.

💬 Melissa Lee: What will the cost of Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media be to New Zealand taxpayers over the next 30 years, as costed in the business case, and is it not over $6 billion between financial years 2027 and 2051?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The cost of the merger will be $40 million over the next four years. If you are adding up the investment, which is what the member is doing, because she’s trying to sound all brilliant, and saying 200 times three, at 30, well, you work it out.

💬 Melissa Lee: Point of order, sir. The question was very specific, and it actually said, “What will be the actual cost of Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media to the New Zealand taxpayers over the next 30 years, as specified and as costed in the business case?”—specific years.

💬 SPEAKER: He definitely answered for the next four years, and also addressed the rest of the question.

💬 Melissa Lee: OK. Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister that the merger of RNZ and TVNZ is not a number one priority for the Government; if so, why is the Minister so insistent on rushing the $6 billion-plus spending plan through before the next election, when the cost over the next three years alone could fund at least three new regional hospitals in rural New Zealand?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The member continues to spout out absolute nonsense. This Government is totally committed to the cost of living. We had a wonderful announcement over the weekend, where we talked about subsidised family care. The cost of living is our number one priority. We’ve also had a 43 percent increase in Pharmac, billions of dollars’ investment in health, and a record investment in Māori. The member does not understand—

💬 SPEAKER: The time for general debate is after question time. I’m tempted to give more supplementaries, but I think the Minister might see it as a reward!

💬 Melissa Lee: If the RNZ-TVNZ merger isn’t a number one priority for the Government during a cost of living crisis—if so, will he stop this wasteful spending plan and stop the merger?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, no, the merger is so important in terms of the future of New Zealand’s identity. As our Prime Minister said, we want to futureproof our New Zealand media. That is under threat from huge global companies like Netflix. We’ve got pressures on them that they’ve never had before. We must look after them. We must create our new identity. We must show more of a Māori voice, an Asian voice, a young person’s voice, a woman’s voice—voices that were all missing when the National Party was in charge of TVNZ and RNZ.

Question No. 12—Local Government

12. to the Associate Minister of Local Government: What recent announcement has the Government made on rural water supplies?

Last week, when I was visiting the greatest little town in the country—Eketāhuna—I made a $10 million announcement for the Rural Drinking Water Programme. Most rural water suppliers are not impacted by the proposed reforms of water services, so this programme will help them with treatment systems, training, and maintenance to help them keep their water safe as well as meet the new regulatory requirements and drinking-water rules. This programme provides direct support to those rural communities who rely on these water suppliers for their drinking water.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: How does the programme help with capacity building in rural water suppliers?

💬 Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Under the Government’s proposed water reforms, many rural water suppliers will not be included in the water service entities. This means that they will have to upgrade water infrastructure themselves in order to meet minimum standards for safe drinking water. Many rural communities can’t connect to council supplies and so are dependent on small rural water suppliers that often rely on volunteers. This $10 million programme will build capacity and capability of water infrastructure installers, operators, and maintainers in rural areas. It will train suppliers to maintain the infrastructure, and make the process of meeting standards consistent across the country as easy as possible.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: How does this announcement respond to the feedback the Minister received from rural and provincial councils?

💬 Hon KIERAN McANULTY: On my tour of 54 rural and provincial councils, I heard that some rural water suppliers were concerned about the cost of upgrading their infrastructure and were unsure about what upgrades would actually be needed to meet the minimum standards. This announcement responds directly to that feedback, and will help rural suppliers provide safe and affordable water to rural consumers into the future. It will also mean officials can work directly with suppliers to outline what is required. In many cases, the suppliers won’t actually need to change much in order to meet the standards.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: What specific support is provided under this programme?

💬 Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Well, the Government, through Crown Infrastructure Partners (CIP), will install new drinking-water treatment equipment that meets proposed new drinking-water rules from Taumata Arowai to ensure water is safe to drink. CIP will maintain the equipment for five years and provide training to help keep the equipment running smoothly. This includes pumps, UV filters, and new technology such as remote monitoring. Once the equipment is installed, rural suppliers will own the drinking-water treatment equipment.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: How can rural water suppliers access the support?

💬 Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Rural water suppliers are asked to register at ruraldrinkingwater.govt.nz. Crown Infrastructure Partners will then make contact with the supplier and visit their site to find out about the scope of the rural community needs. CIP will then work with the supplier to confirm a detailed design, which will be followed by installation of equipment, training, and support.