Oral Questions

1. to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in all of her Ministers?

Yes.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Are media reports correct that Minister Mahuta did not tell her or her Cabinet about the 60 percent entrenchment provision before it was voted on?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ve already been clear on this issue: caucus did not discuss this specific Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), because it had not been tabled. We had a general discussion on entrenchment, but, ultimately, I think, the most important thing is that we have said it was a mistake and, as a team, we have fixed it.

💬 Christopher Luxon: When she said she has no plans to remove Minister Mahuta “based on anything that’s happened here”, does that mean as Prime Minister she is willing to tolerate one of her Ministers deliberately keeping her in the dark?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the member is implying that somehow I should have seen an SOP that had not yet been tabled, and also the point that I’ve made here in this regard: there were 24 SOPs. I would not have an expectation that for every single bill that comes through this House, we would see every single SOP. And I imagine that the member himself may not have either. Again, the most important thing here is a mistake has been made and we have corrected it.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Can she confirm that on 30 May, Cabinet “agreed that the bill should not entrench the privatisation provisions”, and, if so, why is she tolerating a Minister going against the explicit instructions of her and her Cabinet?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The Minister has not.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Doesn’t the Cabinet Manual state, “Once Cabinet makes a decision, Ministers must support it, regardless of their personal views …”, and why has she not taken any action over Minister Mahuta saying in this House, “There is a moral obligation of people who believe that privatisation should not occur to support that particular SOP.”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, that is what the Cabinet Manual says. Yes, the member did continue to uphold the Cabinet decision. The member, actually, though, is asking a question about another party’s SOP. Again, I come back to the principle point: Labour maintains its position that you should never sell these assets. It would be good if the National Party confirmed the same. We also confirmed a mistake was made, and we have fixed it.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Isn’t it the case that Minister Mahuta has clearly breached the Cabinet Manual, and when will the Prime Minister finally show some leadership and sack her?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, the member has not. Secondly, leadership is fixing a problem when you see it. The member on the opposite side has never once given New Zealanders an explanation of what he would do to fix failing water infrastructure in this country. Saying you’ll do nothing is not an option. This country cannot afford to no longer invest in water infrastructure. We have a solution. The member only has opposition and no ideas.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why is she allowing one of her Ministers to blatantly defy her by standing up in Parliament to speak in support of something Cabinet had collectively agreed not to support?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member continues to misrepresent the Minister. Secondly, as a party, we have always stood against the notion of privatisation. We have been absolutely clear on that. We have used every mechanism to make sure that we do not see the privatisation of those assets. The Minister has gone to great lengths to ensure it. What we’ve come to is a question over whether or not a mechanism like entrenchment should be used for those purposes. Our view is it should be removed, but we still stand by keeping them in public ownership. Does the member?

💬 Christopher Luxon: Has she lost so much control over her Cabinet that she’s now either unwilling or unable to remove a Minister who has openly defied her?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The Minister has not defied Cabinet. The Minister has not broken the Cabinet Manual. Again, I accept the member hasn’t been here very long, but it was an SOP from another party.

Question No. 2—Finance

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

The resilience of the economy has been reflected in the latest Crown accounts. For the four months to the end of October, the operating balance before gains and losses, (OBEGAL), recorded a deficit of $2.8 billion—this is $274 million lower than forecast at Budget 2022 in May, and $5 billion lower than for the same period a year ago. Tax revenue also came in slightly below expectations. We know that 2023 is going to be a difficult year for the global economy and for New Zealand. We will not be immune to what happens overseas, with a period of high inflation to be followed by what is now forecast to be a shallow recession. Government actions to grow the economy and support New Zealanders mean we are well positioned to face these global challenges with a solid balance sheet, near-record low unemployment, more people in paid work, and wages increasing.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What else did the report say about the impact of the economy on the Government’s books?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Net debt stood at 19.5 percent of GDP in these accounts, which was above forecast, mainly due to market conditions affecting the New Zealand super fund’s financial portfolio. Using the old measure, net core Crown debt was below forecast, at 39.4 percent of GDP compared with projections of 40.4 percent. Our debt levels remain among the lowest in the OECD, and well below the Government’s debt ceiling of 30 percent, ensuring we are well positioned to weather further economic shocks.

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

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The situation and outlook for primary industries was released by the Ministry for Primary Industries and it shows that food and fibre exports are projected to reach a new record high of $55 billion in 2023—$2.9 billion more than in June 2022. In addition, tourists and holidaymakers are returning in greater numbers and our immigration reset is working to attract the overseas workers we need to rebuild the economy. This will all go some significant way to help protect New Zealanders from the sharp edges of a global downturn.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What reports has he seen on the international context for the New Zealand economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The credit rating agency Fitch has revised downwards its forecast for the global economy. Fitch is projecting global GDP to grow 1.4 percent in 2023, down from 1.7 percent in its September economic outlook. It has lowered its forecast for growth in both the US and China. New Zealand finds itself as well placed as any country in the world in a volatile and uncertain global environment. We will continue to take a balanced and responsible approach in managing our finances. We remain focused on prioritising our spending without adding to inflation pressures, and returning to surplus as soon as possible.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: Is he confident that taxpayer money is being spent appropriately and delivering value for New Zealanders during a cost of living crisis?

Yes—in the context of a period of time when the COVID pandemic has disrupted the operations of all businesses and Governments. As signalled at Budget 2022, our spending decisions continue to focus on delivering value for money and maintaining funding for core public services. The economic environment in which we are operating has shifted since the period when Government spending increased during the COVID emergency to save lives and livelihoods. In our decisions at Budget 2022, the Government looked to strike the right balance between returning the level of Government spending following the COVID emergency to more normal levels, continuing to invest in public services and infrastructure, and supporting New Zealanders facing cost of living pressures.

💬 Nicola Willis: Was it acceptable for the Minister of Transport to politicise transport funding decisions by asking Labour MPs to nominate transport projects in their electorates to receive taxpayer funding without doing the same for non-Labour electorates?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is incorrect in the assertion at the beginning of her question.

💬 Nicola Willis: Is he aware of other occasions when Ministers, acting in their ministerial capacity, have explicitly asked their caucus colleagues to bid for taxpayer dollars for projects in Labour-held electorates to the exclusion of the rest of the country?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to that member’s question, I’m certainly aware of the former Minister of Transport Simon Bridges offering to build 10 bridges in the Northland by-election in the hope of making sure he got a National candidate elected; that didn’t work out so well.

💬 Nicola Willis: Why, in the middle of a cost of living crisis, is the Government prioritising the spending of $370 million on a merger of Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand, when neither the Minister responsible nor the Prime Minister can give coherent reasons for why?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In terms of the actual expenditure on that project in the current financial year, I believe the number is somewhere around $20 million. The spending that the member is talking about is what happens over coming years. From this side of the House’s point of view, it’s important that we continue to invest in all of the services that New Zealanders need. Public service broadcasting is one of those things that will require funding however it is organised.

💬 Nicola Willis: Why did he ignore advice from Treasury to not use funding from the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund to manage the impact of ongoing spending and instead chose to raid that fund to pay for yet more three waters consultants?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the assertions in the member’s question. What we did at Budget 2022 was close the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund and do as any Government would do: make a decision about where to reallocate that funding to.

Question No. 4—Police

4. to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has the Government made about helping Police respond to fleeing drivers?

Last week, the Minister of Justice and I announced a range of legislative measures designed to give police greater enforcement tools when dealing with dangerous and reckless driving on our roads. Overall, the changes will mean drivers can be disqualified for longer, have their vehicle taken away for good, or that the owner of a car could have their vehicle impounded if they choose not to help police track down the driver of a fleeing vehicle. Put simply, if you flee from the police, be prepared to lose your car.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: Why are these changes important, and how will they actually support police?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Police have told us that these changes will help discourage people from fleeing, because they’re now likely to lose their vehicle for longer or for good. There were 8,673 fleeing driver events in the last 12 months—that’s the 12 months ending 31 August—which is an increase, a substantial increase, on last year’s 6,757 events. While no law enforcement can ever stop an offender from choosing to flee, evidence does indicate that the changes most likely to influence offender behaviour are those that create a greater likelihood of getting caught and then losing access to their vehicle.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: What exactly will the changes do?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The changes will increase the maximum driver licence disqualification period for a second offence of failing to stop or remain stopped from 12 months to between 12 months and 24 months. They’ll amend the Sentencing Act so that a vehicle can be forfeited on conviction for failing to stop—which would mean that offenders could have their vehicle permanently removed and they would not get any proceeds back from the sale of it—and they allow police to impound a vehicle for 28 days if the owner fails, refuses, or provides false or misleading information about the identity of a driver from a fleeing vehicle event.

Question No. 5—Children

5. to the Minister for Children: Does he agree with Royal Commissioner Paul Gibson that “The experiences of disabled survivors, shared with the Abuse in Care Royal Commission of Inquiry, describe a terrible history. But it would be a mistake to believe this remains in our past”; if so, what interventions are in place, if any, to ensure a disability rights focus within Oranga Tamariki?

First, can I just thank the member. I think this is an important conversation to have—that we do shine a light on the experiences of our hapori whaikaha—so thank you very much. In terms of the Abuse in Care Royal Commission of Inquiry, it has, undoubtedly, highlighted some traumatic experiences suffered in the care system. So it’s important that we do listen to the survivors and that we ensure that this doesn’t happen again. It’s also important to remember that ensuring disability rights are strongly in focus as a whole system—it doesn’t just come down to one agency, because many disabled tamariki have multi-layered issues. But Oranga Tamariki is driving change across the system through the Oranga Tamariki Action Plan; the Oranga Tamariki Future Direction Action Plan; through the appointment of a Disability Advisory Group; through appointing a Chief Advisor Disability; through the development of a disability strategy, to be completed by May 2023; through examining whether residential care is fit for purpose; and also through having appointed Ruth Jones to the ministerial advisory board as a voice for our hapori whaikaha.

💬 Jan Logie: Has he seen Paul Gibson’s further statement that “Many families who had disabled children faced a hopeless search for community-based services, an acute lack of any support for their child to be cared for within the home”, and, if so, will he ensure the strategy prioritises safety of care within the home?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes, I have seen that comment, and that’s what I say about the Oranga Tamariki Action Plan—make sure that the whole system is looking after the needs of the children. So it’s not just about Oranga Tamariki, it’s not just about Education, it’s not just about Health; every agency has a responsibility to look after the needs of our disabled community, in particular in the home.

💬 Jan Logie: Are disability rights systematically included in staff training—in light of the stories of survivors of abuse in State care—and, if not, when does he expect this to happen?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Not necessarily as a result of the inquiry into abuse in State care, but as part of the Future Direction Action Plan, where social worker practice is a key element of that plan. We are making sure that social workers do have the skills to look after children from across society, including those with disabilities.

💬 Jan Logie: Acknowledging the Minister said the strategy was due in May 2023, does he have a sense of when disabled children and their whānau might expect to see an increase in resources available to them and support through our child protection system?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, again, that comes down to, I guess, the way we drive the Oranga Tamariki Action Plan. All Ministers have agreed that children in Oranga Tamariki care are a priority population. So all Ministers are really working to make sure that all of their agencies provide for the needs of our disabled community.

💬 Jan Logie: Does the Minister have any reflections, at this stage, on the stories coming through the royal commission and the challenges they reflect for us as a country in terms of protecting our children?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes, I do have reflections. I wonder how on earth we could have let this happen over the course of five decades. I have told the story before of a gang member in his 60s who sat down with me and said, at the age of 10, he was picked up from his family for four years because the State didn’t believe that his parents could care for him properly and the rest of his siblings. Within two weeks of coming out of State care, at the age of 14, he had joined Black Power. All his children became gang members, all his grandchildren became gang members, and, I’m sure, many of his great-grandchildren became gang members. We can’t sit in here and judge him and his family for all becoming gang members when the institution that actually created the situation in the first place was the State.

Question No. 6—Justice

6. to the Minister of Justice: Is she confident the justice system is prioritising community safety and providing justice to the victims of crime?

Yes, because we have put more than 1,600 police on the front line. That’s over and above attrition. We have increased the police budget every year after the National Government froze it year on year on year. We are doing more to reduce the harm caused by firearms than any previous Government and we are doing more to tackle gangs and organised crime than ever. All victims of crime deserve our sympathy and support, which is why we have doubled the level of funding for the victims assistance scheme since National left office, and in Budget 2022 we put aside $45 million of a whole-of-Government support approach for victims of crime. On retail crime in particular, shop owners and workers feeling targeted is completely unacceptable, and this is why we have rolled out a thousand fog cannons since 2018. We have introduced a new fog cannon subsidy scheme that will provide all small retailers with $4,000 to go towards installing fog cannons. We have invested $6 million into a retail crime prevention fund to help fund things like CCTV, shatterproof glass, bollards, and other improvements at retail stores. This is a Government that is focused on the victims of crime.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why is a 30 percent reduction in prison numbers, irrespective of how many crimes or victims there are, this Government’s only explicit justice target?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: On this side of the House, we have been focused on ensuring that there is a continuing trend on crime that is going downwards. When we look at targets, we are making sure that we are focusing on the victims of crime. If we want to take a fact-based approach to this discussion around crime and law and order, I have only but repeated the statistics in this House every single week. We have seen a general trajectory—a downwards trajectory—of crime going downwards over the last 10 years. But it’s this pitch I want to bring this House’s mind to: that side of the House is focused on getting tough on crime slogans—boot camps that cost expensive amounts of money and have an 85 percent failure rate.

💬 SPEAKER: No. Order! [Interruption] Order! I warn the member that when I stand and say “Order!”, she should sit.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. That was an interesting answer to a question Mr Goldsmith did not ask. There was no addressing of the question of the reduction in prison numbers or the explicit justice targets of this Government.

💬 SPEAKER: I completely agree. I will award the Hon Paul Goldsmith two additional supplementary questions.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is she denying there has been a 20 percent increase in serious crime in the last few years, and, if not, why is the only target that the Government has a 30 percent reduction in prison numbers?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Thank you to the member for bringing some facts to this House. Let’s talk about facts. What we have seen over the past 10 years—they know, we know; we see spikes in crime all the time. When that side of the House was in Government these are the spikes of crime that we saw. [Holds up graph] We are seeing a spike in crime—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I would ask the member to ask the question again. It’s a straight-up question. We do not need attacks on the Opposition.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is the Minister denying there has been a 20 percent increase in serious crime in the last few years and, if not, why is the only target that this Government has in the justice sector a 30 percent reduction in prisoner numbers?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I refute the premise of that question. This side—the Government—has a range of different targets and we’re working solidly towards those.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: What are the other explicit justice targets?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: For example, just in retail crime alone, one of the targets that we have is to provide wraparound support for victims of crime. The targets that we have are to make sure that we get resources out to those victims of crime. We have the belt and braces measures approach that we have announced earlier this week, and if I compare it to the approach from the side opposite, in 2016, when they invested in things like fog cannons—a failed approach—we fixed them in 2018. We continue to up the ante when it comes to ensuring that there are the appropriate responses in place for those victims of crime, and that’s just one of many.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does the Minister know the difference between a target and ambition?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: On this side of the House, we know the difference between spikes of crime that are temporal and a trajectory that goes straight down, and this is where the statistics show us where we are at. [Holds up graph] This is the state of crime here in Aotearoa right now.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Would real consequences for serious youth offenders be a better solution to the increase in ram raids than telling shop owners to defend themselves with fog cannons and bollards and then not delivering them?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Thank you to the member again for that question, because I think that the real issue is in how we do address our youth crime. We know that when the National Government attempted to do so, particularly in 2016—when we saw that immeasurable strike right there [Holds up graph]—the response was boot camps, failed boot camps of 85 percent proportionality, and slogans like “crushing cars”. What this side of the House does is we focus on evidence. Now, that side of the House may call it “Kumbaya” mush; we call it wraparound services that get results.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is the Minister aware of the evidence that there’s been a 500 percent increase in ram raids in the last year, and what is she doing about it effectively, rather than just announcing more funds?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Yes, I’m well aware of the statistics. I’ve shown them to this House on multiple occasions. What we are seeing is a general trajectory over the last 10 years—but particularly under the Labour Government—of crime rates that have come down.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has she or her predecessor, as Minister of Justice, sought advice on the effects of automatic release provisions for first-time prisoners with a sentence of five years or lower?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: No, I have no immediate plans or any other plans to make any changes to those types of measures.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That wasn’t the question, and it was not addressed.

💬 SPEAKER: I’ll ask the member to ask the question again.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has she or her predecessor, as Minister of Justice, sought advice on the effects of an automatic release provision for first-time prisoners with a sentence of five years or lower?

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, I think it was—[Interruption] Pardon?

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question absolutely was addressed.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, it was addressed.

Question No. 7—Social Development and Employment

7. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What announcements has she made on extending hardship support for dental grants?

In Budget 2022, the Government announced a lift in the amount someone can receive in hardship support for dental grants from 300 to 1,000 per year. This change came into force on 1 December. During 2021, approximately 40,000 people used the $300 special needs grant for dental support through the Ministry of Social Development. However, the grant had not been increased since 1 July 1996, and $300 was no longer adequate. This is why many people needed an advance payment of benefit to fully meet their emergency dental costs. By increasing the dental grant to $1,000, it’s estimated that we will reduce the amount of client debt to Ministry of Social Development clients by $95 million over 4 years, as more of the costs will be covered by the non-recoverable grant.

💬 Dr Emily Henderson: What other changes to hardship support will help people access dental grants?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: In Budget 2022, we announced a lift in the income limits for hardship support. This means more low-income people will be able to access hardship assistance, which includes help for costs such as food, bedding, bond, car repairs, electricity, gas, and, of course, dental grants. We estimate the changes we have made will increase the number of people accessing dental support from 40,000 to 50,000 people per year.

💬 Dr Emily Henderson: Why is extending this support important?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Dental care is something that can be put off by people due to affordability difficulties, especially in low-income households. We also know that issues with dental health have a negative impact on people’s general health, financial health, ability to work, and quality of life. This is particularly important when it comes to employment. Having bad oral health can decrease someone’s confidence and affect their ability to secure long-term, sustainable employment. Therefore, the changes to the grant could have a positive effect on getting people disadvantaged in the labour market into employment.

💬 Dr Emily Henderson: Are there any changes to the criteria for the grant?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Yes. Alongside increasing the grant and lifting the hardship thresholds, we have widened the criteria for the grant. Instead of the grant only being available in an emergency treatment, it will now be available for essential treatment to help stop minor problems becoming major ones. We’ve also changed the amount of times you can access the grant throughout the year. Previously, you could only receive one dental grant, even if it did not reach the $300 limit. Clients will now be able to access the grant multiple times in one year up to the value of $1,000, meaning if you have a treatment that costs $400, you still have $600 you can access if another necessary treatment is required.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why was the non-recoverable amount set at $1,000 when no one should be getting into debt because of their oral health?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think it’s fair to say that it is a significant lift, considering it hadn’t been shifted in over 25 years. What we did see was that many clients who were accessing the $300 grant previously were also incurring debt via the advanced benefit payment that they were having to access to pay the additional amount that wasn’t covered by the grant. From memory, they were ending up with a debt that was around $800 because of that—I think that was on average. So this goes a long way to supporting the clients with their dental health needs, as well as addressing the debt issues that many of our clients experience.

Question No. 8—Transport

8. to the Minister of Transport: On what date did he first write to Labour MPs encouraging them to put forward bids for funding under the $350 million Transport Choices package, and on what date did NZTA open expressions of interest for councils to bid for the funding?

I reject the assertion in the member’s question. The Transport Choices package was announced publicly in May as part of Budget 2022. On 27 June, I wrote to my Labour colleagues reminding them of the purpose of the fund and encouraged them to engage with their communities and councils to help in the collation of ideas for it. MPs did not make bids that were assessed by Waka Kotahi. The Transport Choices package will support 397 new or upgraded bus stops, 242 kilometres of new or upgraded cycleways, 119 school improvements, 29 more walkable neighbourhoods, and 11 new bus prioritisation lanes. All 46 councils who put in a bid received funding for projects in their areas—all of them. These projects will help make our towns and cities more people-friendly places. They will reduce emissions and make life better for local residents in many towns and cities all around New Zealand.

💬 Simeon Brown: When he wrote to Labour MPs on 27 June saying that if they “would like to bring potential projects in your area to my attention, please contact my office.”, how is that not a political slush fund when councils couldn’t express interest until over one month later?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I can explain that very, very clearly, and, again, I reject the assertion in the member’s question. I provide that member and the House with assurance that I would not conduct the affairs of my ministry in that way and neither would Waka Kotahi, who were the ones who made the recommendations for the expenditure of this fund. The way that the process worked was that Waka Kotahi engaged with councils, they collected the ideas that came through from councils and communities, and then put through recommendations to joint Ministers. The one significant change that I made to the recommendation that was brought through from Waka Kotahi is that they recommended funding went to 42 of the 46 councils who applied; I thought it would be more equitable to ensure that all councils who applied received funding, and so I asked that that happened. That included funding going to councils such as the Invercargill City Council and the Ruapehu District Council, which are of course represented by National Party MPs. Again, I say to the member that the way that this process went about was through the collation of bids that came from councils and an assessment of those based on their merits and based on the criteria.

💬 Simeon Brown: So why, then, did the Minister choose to write to Labour MPs over one month before expressions of interest were open for councils, and why, then, did he not write to all members of Parliament?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I’m very happy to provide the full context of the comments that I made to Labour MPs in the letter that I sent to them. I said, “As Waka Kotahi engages with councils about possible programmes for investment, I want to encourage you to spread the message about how critical providing competitive transport choices is to reducing emissions and support these important initiatives as they get under way. You may also want to encourage councils to identify which gaps in their networks and supporting investments may make the greatest difference to people’s transport choices.” Our Government is one that is investing to give people greater transport choices and to invest in a low-emissions transport infrastructure. I know that the National Party criticises every investment we make to reduce emissions within the transport system, but even this is desperate for them. Again, I repeat to the House that 46 councils from around the country applied for funding and 46 councils received funding for projects. There was no favouritism in that.

💬 Simeon Brown: Why did the Minister write to Labour MPs on 27 June, one month prior to councils being able to put an expression of interest in, saying that if they “would like to bring potential projects in your area to my attention, please contact my office.”, and why didn’t that go to all MPs?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Because it is perfectly normal for Government MPs to support Government policies and to talk with Ministers about things they want to advocate for.

Question No. 9—Women

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to—[Members interjecting]

Sorry, can we start that again? And I’m warning Dr Megan Woods and Nicola Willis—cut that out.

9. to the Minister for Women: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What recent announcements have been made on the Government’s progress on pay equity?

The Government has announced that we will extend pay equity to all community and iwi organisations who employ social workers and receive funding from the Crown. This is expected to reach approximately 4,600 social workers, who, as a result, will be paid more fairly for the incredible work they do, with some of our most vulnerable in society. This extension comes after a pay equity settlement for almost 500 social workers employed in five community and iwi organisations.

💬 Sarah Pallett: What other claims have been settled since the passing of the amendments to the Equal Pay Act?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: Five claims have been settled under the new amendments to the Act so far. These amendments have enabled the settlement of historic pay equity claims in female-dominated industries. As a result of these settlements, there has been an average pay correction of 33 percent. This has made a significant impact on the lives of New Zealand women.

💬 Sarah Pallett: What feedback has she heard from social workers on the impact their pay equity settlement has had on their lives?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: I’d like to share with the House a quote from a social worker at Oranga Tamariki who said—and I quote—“When the social workers’ pay equity settlement was reached, the impact on me was huge. The impact on the social work profession was huge. It righted the wrong. It ensured that the front-line social workers at Oranga Tamariki were going to be paid what they should have been if they had not experienced gender undervaluation.”

💬 Sarah Pallett: What are the next steps in the Government’s work programme for pay equity?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: There are currently 27 active pay equity claims across the economy. This is complex work and, as a world leader, New Zealand is doing well to right the wrongs that many women have faced in the workplace, but it does take time. This year—2022—has seen a significant increase in the claims, with 18 percent of all claims ever raised being in this calendar year. However, this Government believes in fair pay for fair work and in ending gender discrimination in the workplace. We are committed to doing that.

Question No. 10—Police

10. to the Minister of Police: Is he confident that all information stolen during the firearms licensing data breach at the former Auckland Central Police Station on Vincent Street has since been recovered?

Police have advised me that they believe that all of the information stolen during the firearms licensing data breach at the former Auckland Central Police Station on Vincent Street have been recovered. The member may also be reassured to know that the police have been regularly running checks to identify if any firearms licence holders have been subject to a burglary, and I’m advised that no one from this cohort has been.

💬 Nicole McKee: How can the Minister be confident that all of the information stolen during the firearms licensing data breach has been recovered, when he can’t confirm that of the contents of the storage bin that was stolen from the former police station after being left there for 11 to 12 months?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I can only go off the advice that Police have provided me, and they have provided me with advice that they believe that all of the information stolen has been recovered.

💬 Nicole McKee: Why have only 2,245 individuals—out of the 3,763 individuals who were affected by the firearms licensing data breach—been contacted by police, and what efforts are being made to contact the remaining individuals affected by this data breach?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m advised that Police has now analysed over 4,000 documents that were stolen and recovered. Police have spoken to 329 individuals of an initial group of 444 whose data sheets contained full details of names and addresses. Police have been unsuccessful in contacting the remaining 115 individuals by phone. They have attempted to send them communications—either email or text messages—to their last known contact details. Police have further identified a further 2,814 individuals for whom partial identifying information was on the documents, including partial full name or address. There have been 1,293 notified via email or text message; however, not all individuals have been easily identifiable, and the police continue to identify and notify those individuals as they can. Police has also released a public notice encouraging firearms licence holders and anyone seeking information on the privacy breach to contact police on an 0800 number that has been provided, or a dedicated email address which has also been provided.

💬 Nicole McKee: Does the Minister stand by his response to my written questions, where he confirmed that he hasn’t received any reports, briefings, memos, aide-mémoire, notes, or written advice on this matter from July to date, and, if so, what communications has he received on this matter that justifies the confidence?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: At the time of the answer, it was correct—of course, I’ve received some further information today in preparation to answer the member’s question.

💬 Nicole McKee: Does the Minister expect firearm owners to have confidence in participating in full registration of their firearms, and if so, why should firearm owners have confidence when police could not keep their information secure or even hold an inquiry to investigate how such a data breach was able to occur?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think that the situation that occurred with Vincent Street was completely unacceptable, and I think that Police do acknowledge that. I think moving to a digitised system of keeping firearms records will ultimately be more secure than having paper files in filing cabinets.

Question No. 11—Local Government

11. to the Minister of Local Government: Does she stand by her statement on entrenching a provision of the Water Services Entities Bill, “We know that while this particular SOP may not pass the constitutional threshold, there is a moral obligation of people who believe that privatisation should not occur to support that particular SOP”, and does she stand by all her statements on entrenchment provisions?

As stated yesterday to exactly the same question, yes. I also stand by my statement that we want all New Zealanders to know that when members in this House say they’re against privatisation, they actually mean it. But some people want to create a perception that they don’t want privatisation. However, they are offering up ways in which you could better privatise water infrastructure assets, and we have already seen what happened in relation to electricity reforms. It has always been a bottom line for Government to safeguard against privatisation when improving water services delivery.

💬 Simon Watts: Why did the Water Services Entities Bill report back to the House on 22 November with entrenchment of a privatisation provision when Cabinet resolved on 30 May “that the Bill should not entrench the privatisation provisions in the Bill;”?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Because Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 285 had a lower threshold that was accepted under Standing Order 270. We rectified the advice that came after the vote was taken. A mistake has been fixed, and we’re moving on.

💬 Simon Watts: Did she discuss the 60 percent entrenchment of clause 116 of the Water Services Entities Bill with any Green Party MPs before SOP 285 was tabled; if so, who?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: As I said in the House yesterday, we became aware of Standing Order 285 when it was tabled in the House. Let me be clear; I made an error yesterday in the timing, because that amendment to SOP 285 was tabled in the committee.

💬 Hon Members: Answer the question.

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I am answering the question. Listen to the answer. [Interruption] If you really want to hear the answer, listen. That SOP was tabled in the House after our caucus meeting on 22 November.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I think you know what I’m about to say, which is that that was a very clear question about conversations between the Minister and Green Party members of Parliament, and that answer did not mention that at all.

💬 SPEAKER: None the less, it’s been addressed.

💬 Simon Watts: Did Cabinet authorise her to make a decision on any entrenchment amendments tabled on the Water Services Entities Bill, and, if not, why did she say “supporting entrenchment was a moral obligation” despite Cabinet agreeing not to entrench any privatisation provisions on 30 May?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: As I said in the House yesterday, Cabinet papers that I referred to in the House yesterday provided the context of entrenchment matters that were considered, and for clarity, the dates of those Cabinet papers were April 2022 and 30 May 2022. The SOP 285 that the member is referring to was an SOP by a member of the Green Party.

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: Has the Minister had assurances from all parties in this House that they will very definitely not sell our water assets?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Sadly, no. National and ACT have not agreed to any undertaking of that kind.

Question No. 12—Digital Economy and Communications

12. to the Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications: What reports has he seen about improved rural broadband?

The expansion of the Rural Capacity Upgrade programme, funded out of Budget 2022, and a Labour Party manifesto commitment, means around 30,000 rural homes and communities will soon have access to faster, improved connectivity. I was pleased to be at Fieldays last week to share this good news alongside the launch of Lifting Connectivity in Aotearoa, which sets out a high-level connectivity vision for New Zealand over the next decade. This will significantly improve connectivity for homes and businesses, and has the potential to boost economic productivity for those with a slow or unreliable connection across the country.

💬 Anna Lorck: What reaction has he seen following last week’s announcement?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Our connectivity plan has won the support of Tech Users Association of New Zealand (TUANZ) chief executive Craig Young who said, “We’ve been proposing a 10 year plan for some time now, so it’s great to see this is now in place with some clear objectives and principles on how the Government aims to meet these.” Federated Farmers have applauded the Government’s rural connectivity ambitions. Board member Richard McIntyre said, “While it’s going to take a lot more investment on top of the money already announced, we applaud the commitments made to [long-term] rural connectivity solutions,”. The expansion of the Rural Capacity Upgrade programme has also gathered praise from the Rural Support Trust, stating that connectivity is not available to a lot of people, so this is really encouraging. With more businesses online, more people working from home, and access to many health services, the opportunity for greater economic growth is there, and this Government is ensuring greater access for those in our rural communities.

💬 Anna Lorck: What other reports has he seen on improved rural broadband?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: More good news. The latest Crown Infrastructure Partners quarterly connectivity data shows that as of September 2022, 86.4 percent of the population can now access ultra-fast broadband (UFB). That’s up from 63 percent when we came into Government at the end of 2017. The member for Tukituki will be pleased to know that for the Hawke’s Bay region, the proportion of New Zealanders able to access UFB went from 57 percent in 2017 right up to 85 percent in September this year. This is a Government’s that delivering for rural communities.

💬 Anna Lorck: What support is there for those living in the most remote communities?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The Remote Users Scheme was launched last month, and it will equip as many of our most remote households as possible with broadband for the first time. We think there might be up to around 5,500 households who may be eligible to connect for the first time, and this initiative, which provides a grant of up to $2,000, has been designed with them in mind. The Government has also made deals with the major telecommunications network operators to accelerate the roll-out of 5G services across New Zealand and improve rural connectivity. For the first time, a spectrum roll-out of this type has placed requirements on those providers to prioritise rural and provincial connectivity. It is as important for wellbeing in our rural communities as it is for futureproofing our agricultural exports. As the global cost of living crisis puts pressure on New Zealanders and their families, we know a reliable connection will make it easier to earn, learn, and socialise from home. It’s just as important for our remote communities, and this Government is finally putting them first.

Questions to Members

Question No. 1—Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment Bill

1. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Member in charge of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment Bill: Why is tackling alcohol advertising, as proposed in Part 2 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment Bill, important?

It’s important because alcohol, like all drugs, can cause harm. Alcohol is the most commonly used drug in Aotearoa New Zealand, consumed by 80 percent of adults, a quarter of those to harmful ends. As the Cancer Society says, it is a class 1 carcinogen and known to cause many cancers, while economists estimate it costs our country up to $7.85 billion annually. In 2014, the then National Government commissioned a ministerial forum on alcohol advertising and sponsorship in sports to consider whether restrictions on marketing could reduce alcohol harm. The forum, chaired by Sir Graham Lowe, found very clearly that they could reduce alcohol normalisation and glamorisation and, therefore, alcohol harm, by ultimately phasing out all alcohol marketing in sports like we did with tobacco in the 1990s. The alcohol harm minimisation bill would implement three of the recommendations in that report.

💬 Hon James Shaw: How would ending broadcast alcohol advertising impact funding for sports organisations?

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Well, I have asked the alcohol, advertising, and sports sector for the 2022 value of sports sponsorship. All of them have said that they cannot provide the figures but they estimate that it is less than the $20 million that was estimated back in the 2014 ministerial forum. I have written to many members in this House outlining the two key mechanisms that we could use to assist with the phasing out of alcohol sponsorship in sports; namely, they are, first, a time-limited fund like the one set up to phase out tobacco sponsorship in sports—as actually recommended by that 2014 ministerial forum—or, secondly, to use the pre-existing health promotion levy, recycling an extra approximate 2c on a can of beer, 2c on a ready-to-drink, 5c on a bottle of wine, and 6c on a bottle of spirits.