Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Housing: How is the Government supporting people whose homes have been damaged or destroyed by recent severe weather in New Zealand?

The recent severe weather has caused significant damage to homes across the North Island, displacing thousands of people. To date, there have been over 9,000 rapid building assessments and reassessments completed in the impacted regions in the North Island. In Auckland, there have been 664 red placards and 2,292 yellow placards issued. Across the regions impacted by Cyclone Gabrielle, including Tai Rāwhiti, Hastings, Northland, Waikato, Central Hawke’s Bay, and Wairoa, 183 homes have red placards and a further 1,332 homes have yellow placards. While initial assessments are still to be completed in isolated areas, over 90 percent of rapid building assessments are completed, and Government will continue working closely with councils to complete the assessments.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: Who are responsible for conducting the rapid building assessments?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Rapid building assessors are trained volunteers who are registered with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to be deployed, where required, to assess whether affected buildings in the area can be safely used. Assessors are either qualified with engineering or building science degrees, or they have building consent officer experience with appropriate qualifications from endorsed programmes. While some territorial authorities have been able to coordinate a sufficient pool of local rapid building assessors to undertake the assessments, the Government is coordinating building management support for territorial authorities who need further resources to conduct these assessments. To date, approximately 14 rapid building assessors have been deployed from around New Zealand, and they have been deployed to Kaipara, Waikato, Hastings, Tai Rāwhiti, Wairoa, and Tīnui.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: What support has the Government provided to those people who have been displaced by the recent severe weather?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government’s temporary accommodation service has provided support to displaced people across Northland, Auckland, Tai Rāwhiti, Bay of Plenty, Waikato, Hawke’s Bay, and Tararua District: 1,600 households have registered for Temporary Accommodation Service (TAS) support so far, and we’re expecting that to increase to over 3,500 households across those regions. The current priority for TAS is to ensure there is an adequate supply of short-term accommodation to meet immediate housing need as part of the disaster response, which includes commercial accommodation like motels, hotels, and motorhomes.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: How will the Government support households who will be displaced for longer periods of time?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Given the severity of the weather events, many households will be displaced for longer periods of time while their damaged or destroyed homes are repaired or rebuilt. We’re already investigating longer-term accommodation options to accommodate those displaced by the events, such as Portacabins, renting or buying new homes, and supporting iwi-led temporary housing initiatives. We have experience delivering these types of accommodation solutions, including the temporary village in Westport following the flooding events in 2021. When no longer needed for TAS purposes, houses, cabins, and infrastructure from TAS villages have either been sold at residual values to social housing providers or first-home buyers, or ownership has been transferred to local councils for the benefit of the local community.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

💬 Christopher Luxon: How does he reconcile his claim he sent memos to the Public Service about constant spending “many times over the last five years” with Public Service Commissioner Peter Hughes’ statement today that he’s never received one?

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In fact, the memo in question—or the memo in question, if that’s the best example of the memo in question—was in fact a minute from Cabinet. That is about the highest form of memo that you can get within the New Zealand Public Service, which is—

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: He hasn’t been in Cabinet.

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yeah, and I’m surprised the member opposite isn’t aware of that. I’d also note that I have met, as the Minister for the Public Service, on a regular basis, normally several times a year, with all of the chief executives of the Public Service Government departments from which this has been a topic of conversation. They should be well aware of the Government’s expectations.

💬 Christopher Luxon: So why is Peter Hughes contradicting him?

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: He isn’t.

💬 Christopher Luxon: What did he actually do to follow up on his promise in 2018 to cut spending on consultants, or was it just a press release that he fired out and odd directives and memos?

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I’ve just indicated to the member, there was a Cabinet minute that made clear the Government’s expectations to all Government agencies.

💬 Christopher Luxon: So why hasn’t there been a reduction in consultant spending?

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Ultimately, Government department chief executives make the decision on how best to deliver on the Government’s priorities. We’ve been very clear that we want to see less spending on consultants and contractors.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does he stand by his claim that the $16 million spent on the cancelled TVNZ-RNZ merger was “not necessarily wasted”?

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There’s no question that some of the findings from that will point to the future direction of Government policy around public broadcasting. That landscape is changing significantly, and anybody who wants to bury their head in the sand and pretend otherwise is clearly going to end up with a public media sector that’s moribund.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Is it a waste of money to pay the TVNZ-RNZ merger board $8,000 a day to keep working on a project that he’s cancelled?

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We were very clear, and I was very clear when I announced that that work would not be proceeding, that there would be some wind-down costs. I’d expect that the departments and agencies can soon get through those as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does he agree with Willie Jackson, who said the merger could be back post cyclone recovery?

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We’ve made it very clear what the Government’s priorities are here. Radio New Zealand and TVNZ will continue as independent entities.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Which is worse: his track record as Public Service Minister, where he failed to rein in consultant spending, his track record as education Minister, where he failed to lift achievement, his track record as police Minister, where he failed to bring down crime, or his track record so far as Prime Minister, where he’s failed to do anything?

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject all of the above, but particularly on crime. I’d note that during the time I was the Minister of Police, the number of ram raids that were being conducted fell by three-quarters—so a 75 percent reduction in that through some intensive intervention on the part of the Government. The member so far doesn’t seem to be able to get past bumper sticker slogans and come up with any concrete actual ideas about how to make New Zealand a better place to live.

💬 David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister explain mathematically what impact 82 new truancy officers will make on just under 100,000 chronically absent students?

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The attendance officers are going to be working directly with schools to support their efforts to get those kids who are currently not engaging in education regularly back into the classroom on a more regular basis. As we know from previous experience, that can take a number of different forms. In some cases, simply more active engagement with the families can get those kids attending more regularly; in other cases, it requires more intensive intervention, which is why this is only one piece of that puzzle. We’ve also put additional funding into the attendance services, who do that more intensive work with the kids who are not enrolled or who are not regularly engaged and who are at that chronic end of non-attendance.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very specific and turned on the word “mathematically”. Now, he’s made lots of general statements, but he hasn’t addressed the fact that he’s got 82 people trying to chase about 100,000 kids.

💬 SPEAKER: I completely disagree. A further supplementary?

💬 David Seymour: How do you disagree?

💬 SPEAKER: Are you challenging my ruling?

💬 David Seymour: No—asking about it.

💬 SPEAKER: No, well, don’t do that.

Question No. 3—Women

3. to the Minister for Women: What work is under way to progress gender equity in New Zealand?

Happy International Women’s Day. The theme of the 2023 International Women’s Day campaign is “embrace equity”. The Government has a strong commitment to progressing gender equity through pay equity. Since the passing of the amendment to the Equal Pay Act in July 2020, six claims have been settled so far, resulting in over 110,000 people having their pay corrected, and there are another 27 active claims under way.

💬 Sarah Pallett: What pay equity settlements have recently been reached?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: This week, a historic pay equity settlement was signed for 1,200 school librarians and library assistants and around 400 science technicians, and I was delighted to be able to attend the signing ceremony. For school librarians and library assistants, the new pay equity rates will see them receive average pay increases of approximately 10 to 38 percent; and for science technicians, they will see pay increases ranging from 20 to 40 percent.

💬 Nicola Grigg: Has the Minister, as part of her work on gender equity, encouraged the Minister of Health to adopt National’s policy to extend free mammograms to women aged 69 to 74 years old, which could save 65 lives a year; and if not, why not?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: The Minister of Health and myself have had discussions around the Women’s Health Strategy, which is in development at the moment. That is open until 17 March for input. I would encourage that member to put a submission in.

💬 Sarah Pallett: What action is being taken to reduce the overall gender pay gap in New Zealand?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: The gender pay gap in New Zealand is sitting stubbornly at 9.2 percent, but I will say that the gender pay gap in the Public Service is at 7.7 percent, which is the lowest it’s been on record. It has come down from 12.2 percent in 2018. That has happened because there has been a focus on this, there have been targets set, and a relentless drive by the Public Service to bring that pay gap down.

💬 Sarah Pallett: What work is being done to address pay transparency?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: Minister Radhakrishnan and I have asked for advice on what a pay transparency system in Aotearoa New Zealand could look like, and work is under way to develop options. Whilst pay transparency is one way to ensure people are paid fairly, I don’t see it as a silver bullet. The National Advisory Council on the Employment of Women has been appointed as the national advisory group on pay transparency and has been engaging with the business sector to help inform this work. We are hoping to be in a position to provide an update on this work in coming months.

Question No. 4—Conservation

4. to the Minister of Conservation: Does she believe that the Jobs for Nature programme represents good value for money?

Yes. The Jobs for Nature programme has ensured that conservation work is at the heart of economic recovery, providing both significant social and environmental outcomes. Now in year three, over 4,900 people employed through the programme have done more than 3.7 million hours of conservation work around Aotearoa. What that means for our environment is more predator control, more native tree planting, more weed control, and more people feeling empowered and equipped to connect and care for the whenua.

💬 Nicole McKee: Can she confirm that as at 31 December 2022, the Ministry for the Environment website showed that just over $1 billion in funding had been contracted and 6.3 million hours of work had been completed?

💬 Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: I am the Minister for Conservation. I can talk to what projects the Department of Conservation has funded.

💬 Nicole McKee: Is the Minister aware that with those figures, it means $167—which is almost eight times the minimum wage—is being paid out for each hour of work, and what are New Zealand taxpayers getting for that money?

💬 Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: What Aotearoa is getting for the money that we have invested through Jobs for Nature is more than 4,900 people being employed at a time when we were facing an economic crisis and the threat of unemployment. What New Zealanders are getting is 3.7 million hours of conservation work that has been done. Through that, we have more predator control, more native planting—these are huge benefits for Aotearoa.

💬 Nicole McKee: Has she asked the Minister of Finance how long the Government can keep borrowing money to fund low-skilled jobs at $167 an hour, and if she has, what did he say?

Chlöe Swarbrick: No such thing as a low-skilled job.

💬 Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Yes.

💬 Hon Member: Shameful.

💬 Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Yeah. The work that people have done for our taiao is work that we should be proud of, that we should all be grateful for. I would not describe it in the way that that member has described it. No, I have not yet had conversations with the Minister of Finance about further opportunities—

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: No, here.

💬 Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: —not here, yeah—about further opportunities in terms of those people who have worked on Jobs for Nature projects.

💬 Hon David Parker: Can the Minister confirm that Jobs for Nature included the hire of helicopters to poison wilding pines and control wallabies, and that the cost of hiring a helicopter is more than the minimum wage per hour?

💬 Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Yes, I can confirm that.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: What has been the cost to taxpayers so far of work associated with proposals for a TVNZ-RNZ merger and a New Zealand Income Insurance Scheme?

I am advised that the latest available total cost of the work on the TVNZ-RNZ merger is $16.1 million. I’m further advised that the latest available total cost of the work on the New Zealand Income Insurance Scheme is $20.7 million. The final costs will be confirmed through the usual parliamentary accountability processes, and, of course, detailed questions about these programmes are best directed to the Ministers responsible for the relevant appropriations.

💬 Nicola Willis: Are there any ongoing costs associated with these proposals, and, if so, why are New Zealand taxpayers continuing to pay for work on policies the Government does not think are fit to implement?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the Prime Minister has already indicated, there will be both wind-down costs and—at the time of the announcement around the New Zealand Income Insurance Scheme—there would be ongoing policy work on what is a gap in our social security system.

💬 Nicola Willis: How much money in addition to the $36 million already poured down the drain will this Government throw at these zombie policies?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said yesterday to the member, I appreciate the fact—which she’s just confirmed with that question—that she doesn’t care about those people made redundant in New Zealand, or those people who lose their jobs through health conditions or disabilities. So, as noted at the time of the announcement, there will be ongoing policy work. If the member wants to reflect on policies where things were put down the drain, she might want to reflect on the millions of dollars spent on a sheep farm in the Saudi desert by the former National Government.

💬 Nicola Willis: Is it the case that these flawed proposals have not been stopped, but are instead being kept in hibernation, being kept warm with taxpayers’ money, ready to return to life if Labour ever wins another election?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The interesting thing is that the member hasn’t been following along very closely, because on the day that the announcements were made by the Prime Minister, it was made clear that, actually, looking after New Zealanders who lose their jobs through no fault of their own is a gap in our social security system. What the Prime Minister said at the time was that now was not the right time to do that with economic conditions as they are. So the member, if she had been following along, would know the answer to her question.

💬 Nicola Willis: So if it’s such a good idea, why isn’t it going ahead?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because there’s a cost of living crisis, which the member keeps telling us about over and over again—which the member keeps telling us about over and over again. Yet whenever the Government proposes anything that might help people with the cost of living, the National Party oppose it—that is, I might say, other than their own proposal to give tax cuts to the highest-income earners. I stand proudly on our record of backing New Zealanders when they’re facing a cost of living crisis.

💬 Nicola Willis: So can we now conclude that the Minister of Finance remains very emotionally attached to the Income Insurance Scheme and the jobs tax that he wanted to fund, but that even he acknowledges that slapping an $800—average—tax on New Zealanders will never be a winner and that, therefore, this is a policy that will only succeed if he somehow undermines the Prime Minister?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That speech from the member was an interesting insight into the values of different political parties. I will stand proudly on being emotionally attached to having New Zealanders in work and to having New Zealanders looked after, so that when they get sick, we look after them, and so that when they lose their job, we look after them. That’s what we did during COVID. So the member might think it’s all a political game or some part of the Wellington High School debating society that she’s part of, but for me, it is an emotional matter to have New Zealanders in work and to look after them.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

6. to the Prime Minister: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou i te āhuatanga ki wā tātou wāhine. He wahine, he whenua, ka mate te tangata.

[Women, like the land itself, are crucial to the wellbeing of humanity.]

Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

💬 SPEAKER: You need to read it as—the last word is “policies”, not “actions”.

Yes.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Do you want me to repeat that?

💬 SPEAKER: No, it’s OK.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Does he stand by his statement, “Do I think we need to find Te Matatini a sustainable funding platform? Yes, I do.”; if not, why not?

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I do.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: How can he be comfortable with current levels of funding for kapa haka in Aotearoa, when, currently, the Government does not currently provide any funding for the regional Matatini competition or other levels such as tamariki and rangatahi performances?

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m not, and that’s a topic of active conversation at the moment.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: What is his response to multiple research reports that show that Māori—including rangatahi—who participate in kapa haka achieve higher academic results, have better physical health, and improved cultural belonging and mental wellbeing?

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I welcome those reports; I welcome Te Matatini. I do believe that the renaissance in kapa haka that we’re seeing through our education system at the moment is a very, very welcome development and one that we should all be proud of, and it’s one that we, as a Government, are keen to support.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the reports from Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga from June 2022, which were commissioned by Te Matatini, that demonstrate the value of kapa haka to Aotearoa.

💬 SPEAKER: Are they publicly available?

💬 Rawiri Waititi: No.

💬 SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none—they may be tabled.

Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Will he increase the budget for Te Matatini and all levels of kapa haka so that it’s equitable to the funding for the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra and the Royal New Zealand Ballet, to recognise the higher standard of cultural excellence that is only to be found in Aotearoa; if not, why not?

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As the member is aware, the Budget is in May. But I can tell him, as I’ve said publicly, that we are having discussions about how best to ensure that we can fund Te Matatini, how best we can support the renaissance of kapa haka that has been happening, and I do expect that there will be some further announcements coming in due course.

💬 Hon Peeni Henare: Can the Prime Minister confirm that some of the major sponsors of Te Matatini—most recently held in Tāmaki-makau-rau—include Government departments such as ACC, the role of Te Whatu Ora, Te Aka Whai Ora, and Te Tāhuhu o te Mātauranga?

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, indeed, I can confirm that, and I also want to acknowledge and thank all of the private sector sponsors who put a significant backing into Te Matatini—an amazing event that I had the opportunity to attend in Auckland. I think it’s one we should all celebrate as New Zealanders. It was an amazing event, a fantastic spirit, and just great to see people putting their heart and soul into something that they are clearly so proud of.

Question No. 7—Education

7. to the Minister of Education: What was the percentage of time associated with unjustified absences in term 3 2019 compared to term 3 2022, and has the percentage of time associated with unjustified absences increased over that period?

For 93.5 percent of the time during term 3 2022, students were either present or away from school for a justifiable reason such as illness. For 6.5 percent of that time, students were unjustifiably absent when measured as half-days. For 95 percent of the time during term 3 2019, students were either present or away from school for a justifiable reason. For 5 percent of the time, students were unjustifiably absent when measured as half-days. Due to COVID-19, all absences went up, but, proportionately, more absences were justified; in other words, proportionately, when you look at the total time spent in the classroom, more absences were due to justifiable reasons in term 3 between 2019 and 2022.

💬 Erica Stanford: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very specific question on notice about the percentage of time associated with unjustified absences. The Minister has given me a completely different number comparing the percentage of unjustified absences to justified absences, and that is not what I asked for.

💬 SPEAKER: I think the member is going to have to accept the form that the Minister has given the answer in, because the information does address the question.

💬 Erica Stanford: Why did the Minister say in this House on 23 February that, “Unjustified absence is dropping rapidly between 2019 to now”, when the official data shows that unjustified absences have climbed to the highest ever percentage recorded in term 3 2022?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: Because, as I said in my first answer, all absences went under COVID-19, but proportionately, more absences were justified. In other words, proportionately, when you look at the total time spent in the classroom, more absences were due to justified reasons in term 3 between 2019 and 2022. What I will say is that I do appreciate that attendance data is complicated and does often use different basis for talking about the same thing. Therefore, I have asked officials to consider what the best way of describing student attendance is so that we can all understand where the real issues are and focus on making improvements.

💬 Erica Stanford: Who is correct: the Ministry of Education in their term 3 attendance report who said, “There was an increase in the percentage of time associated with unjustified absences in term 3 between 2019 and 2022”, or the Minister of Education, who said, “Unjustified absence is dropping rapidly between 2019 to now”?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: If the member reads the same report, she will also see that the Ministry of Education say that, proportionately, when you look at the total time spent in the classroom, more absences were due to justified reasons in term 3 between 2019 and 2022.

💬 Erica Stanford: Are there more children taking unjustified absences in 2022 compared to 2019?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: As I’ve said, due to COVID-19, there are more children taking absences full stop, but the proportion between the two shows that there are more justified absences. This is a really pleasing trend.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. That could not possibly have addressed the question. Mrs Stanford was very clear that she was talking about unjustified absences, and the answer referred only to justified absences.

💬 Hon David Parker: With respect to the Hon Michael Woodhouse, it didn’t, and she answered the question in the first part of her answer.

💬 SPEAKER: In my opinion—I’m going to give the member an additional supplementary, but it’s not in punishment to the Minister, because I think the Minister has provided the information, but, in the interest of the House knowing, I will allow Erica Stanford to have an extra question.

💬 Erica Stanford: Why is it that when she was shown this graph by a journalist yesterday and asked if she accepted that the unjustified absences had increased since 2019, she said no?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: Because, as I’m trying to explain here, we’re talking about two different data sets, and one data set shows something very, very different but the same thing. Now, I know that sounds confusing, which is why I’m talking about proportionality of the absences as a whole. When you see and look at the proportion of total time kids were in the classroom in term 3 2022, there were more justifiable absences than in term 3 2021, and, in fact, 2019. That is a promising trend.

💬 Erica Stanford: Can she finally admit that the total number can increase even though the percentage, as she explains, is decreasing?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: As I’ve said—I’ll repeat what I’ve said: absences—absences—overall in COVID are greater. I’ve said that three times now.

💬 David Seymour: Is the Minister trying to say that the bad news is more kids are missing school, but the good news is it’s justified?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: Of course, during COVID, when people have been sick, you are going to get more people who are going to be absent from school.

💬 Erica Stanford: Why is she spending her time trying to manipulate the data to desperately try and show that unjustified absences are declining, when the Ministry of Education—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I don’t think the member can ask the question which implies that the Minister is lying, or, in this case, you used the word “manipulating”—tantamount to saying that you’re making it up.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order, Mr Speaker. You may well be correct, and I’m not challenging that the question may have been out of order, but to rule it out of order on the basis that the member was accusing the Minister of lying is, I think, quite a long bow to be drawing. Now, as you know, that is a serious breach of the Standing Orders, and I think it might have been better to use a different term.

💬 SPEAKER: That might be so, but I’ve made my ruling.

💬 Erica Stanford: Shall I reword that question, Mr Speaker?

💬 SPEAKER: No, that question is gone.

💬 Erica Stanford: Why did she say yesterday, “I almost need a whiteboard to explain it to you because it’s so complicated.”, when comparing percentage figures is a skill that’s taught at year 8?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: Because the way, when you are using two different data sets, is obviously really difficult to understand—to compare the two. The data systems need work to be more accurate and efficient. That means they need investment, which is why we’re putting in $7.7 million over three years to do just that. This will fund experts who’ll be assigned to work directly with schools and communities to improve the quality, understanding, and the use of attendance data.

Question No. 8—Immigration

8. to the Minister of Immigration: What recent action has the Government taken to support victims of the war in Ukraine?

New Zealand stands shoulder to shoulder with the people of Ukraine in the face of Russian barbarism, and one of the important areas in which we have provided that support is through our immigration policy. And so last week, I was pleased to announce that the Government will be expanding the 2022 Special Ukraine Visa to ensure Ukrainians in New Zealand can continue to bring their family members here as the war continues. The policy allows eligible family members to be granted a two-year visa with work rights or study rights if they’re under 18. This recognises New Zealand’s ongoing commitment to support Ukraine over a year on from Russia first launching its illegal invasion. We’ve also made a number of other changes to the settings to support the intent of the visa and ensure those looking to sponsor family members have as great a certainty as possible about how the process works.

💬 Ibrahim Omer: How long do individuals now have to make an application under the Special Ukraine Visa?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The window for expressions of interest to be submitted was due to close on 15 March this year. This has now been extended by one year to 15 March 2024. We’re also extending the period in which someone granted a visa must travel to New Zealand, from nine months to 12 months, noting that securing travel from Ukraine to New Zealand can be difficult to organise given the current situation on the ground.

💬 Ibrahim Omer: How is the Government making it easier to sponsor relatives to come to New Zealand?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Rather than relying on one family sponsor as per the current policy, each application will now have a nominating family member who meets the New Zealand and Ukrainian residency requirements, and an acceptable sponsor who will take on financial responsibility for the applicant, so that in some instances someone who isn’t related to the applicant can take on the financial responsibility for the claimant. This makes for a much more flexible regime in terms of New Zealanders who might want to support a Ukrainian person to seek shelter in New Zealand. The sponsor, whether it is a family member or another individual, will remain responsible for arranging and funding travel to New Zealand as well as accommodation and living costs once they arrive.

💬 Ibrahim Omer: What other changes has the Government made to make the settings of the Special Ukraine Visa?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: We’ve also broadened the criteria for those who can sponsor a family member to include those with Ukrainian heritage, rather than just those who were born in Ukraine or are Ukrainian citizens. This will effectively increase the pool of people who are able to sponsor someone to seek shelter in New Zealand. Those who can be sponsored under the category is also expanding to include other adult family members who have lived with this family for a substantial period of time. This could be aunts, uncles, grandchildren, nieces and nephews, first cousins, and step siblings. Together, these changes reaffirm New Zealand’s commitment to supporting Ukraine and her people at this most difficult of times.

Question No. 9—Workplace Relations and Safety

9. to the Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she agree with Australian Prime Minister Albanese, who said “right now, there’s not enough transparency around the gender pay gap in workplaces. That’s why we’re introducing a bill to fix that”; if so, when will she introduce a pay transparency bill?

I do agree with Prime Minister Albanese, and this Government is absolutely committed to reducing the gender and ethnic pay gaps and improving pay equity more broadly in New Zealand. Officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Ministry for Women are progressing work on what a pay transparency system that is fit for New Zealand would look like. This includes considering a range of options that includes both policy and legislative options. We are also working with NACEW—that’s the National Advisory Council on the Employment of Women—in their role as the national advisory group on pay transparency to ensure that we get it right for New Zealand. It is also important to remember that this is one part of a broader suite of initiatives that this Government has progressed to address pay equity issues. This is a Government that’s committed to improving pay equity. We’ve taken a number of steps already towards this and we will continue to do so.

💬 Jan Logie: Does she consider increasing all women’s pay a bread and butter issue when it’s so essential for putting the bread and butter on the table?

💬 Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: As I’ve already said, pay equity issues around fairness of pay is a priority for this Government. We have already progressed an amendment to the Equal Pay Act in 2020. That has meant that over 104,000 people have had an adjustment to their pay through pay equity settlements. In fact, the Minister for Women has just outlined to this House recent steps taken towards that. We have passed fair pay agreements: the Fair Pay Agreements Act 2022 that will help a number of people towards pay equity. The Public Service Commission is requiring public sector agencies to report about their pay gaps and action to fix those pay gaps. And we have a number of employment action plans that have set out a range of actions designed to target exactly this.

💬 Jan Logie: Does she acknowledge the research that shows Pacific women being paid only 75c to Pākehā men’s dollar is largely a result of unconscious bias and discrimination that could be addressed by pay transparency?

💬 Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I acknowledge that piece of research and also research that was commissioned and undertaken by the Ministry for Women that finds that 80 percent of a gender pay gap was unexplained and is generally based on the result of conscious and unconscious biases and also various other factors that impact negatively on women’s recruitment and pay advancement. That is exactly why we are progressing work to look at what a pay transparency system that is fit for New Zealand could look like.

💬 Jan Logie: Considering we’ve had an Equal Pay Act for 50 years, the public sector—which has pay transparency—has closed the gap, but New Zealand more broadly has seen a widening of the gap recently; why is the Government not acting with more urgency to introduce pay transparency legislation?

💬 Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: As I have said time and again in this House—today, as well—we are progressing work to look at what a pay transparency system that is fit for a New Zealand context would look like. That requires work, and that work is under way. In the meantime, we’ve undertaken a range of steps to address pay equity more broadly that has resulted in the impact—or, what we’re seeing of the narrowing of the gap that the member has just outlined.

💬 Jan Logie: Why has the Government referred the pay transparency work to NACEW, delaying implementation, when labour historian Cybèle Locke has said, “the research needed for setting up a proper pay transparency system for the private sector is already there.”?

💬 Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: That is not true. We do need more research into this, into what a fit for context, fit for purpose system would look like. That’s exactly what we do. I reject the member’s premise that this is delaying the work—we’re working with NACEW and their networks to make sure that we get this right.

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

💬 Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: An advisory group is what we need to ensure that we get this work right.

Question No. 10—Whānau Ora

10. to the Minister for Whānau Ora: How has Whānau Ora responded to the communities affected by Cyclone Gabrielle?

Firstly, I pay tribute to those who lost loved ones and all of the whānau affected by Cyclone Gabrielle and the recent weather events. There’s something about a crisis that continues to bring our communities together, and Whānau Ora certainly stood up to play their part. The Whānau Ora commissioning agencies have provided a range of supports through their network of partners to whānau, including the support of over 10,000 whānau members affected by the recent weather events; reprioritised over $3 million in support to access kai, clean water, medical support, health support, and temporary accommodation for displaced whānau; supported 800 displaced recognised seasonal employees—otherwise known as RSE workers—stood up communications support, such as call centre for triage and communication and translation services; and, through the Pacific Medical Association Medical Assistance Team, offered 461 mental health checks, and 235 GP medical checks have been completed; and they are also continuing to give vaccinations for measles and COVID-19 during this time. Whānau Ora is certainly playing their part.

💬 Soraya Peke-Mason: How was Whānau Ora able to support communities in response to these events so quickly?

💬 Hon PEENI HENARE: The Whānau Ora commissioning agencies, as with COVID-19, were able to pivot their business-as-usual service provision and rapidly mobilise to surge support into affected communities. This included the movement of nearly 600 Whānau Ora workers into affected areas and into supporting those areas. This flexible infrastructure and relationship with communities on the ground is important to the agile nature of Whānau Ora and the way that they serve our communities.

💬 Soraya Peke-Mason: What feedback is the Minister hearing about Whānau Ora support on the ground?

💬 Hon PEENI HENARE: The Minister for Māori Development and I visited Te Matau-a-Māui and had a good chance to speak with the likes of Te Taiwhenua ki Heretaunga, Whānau Ora providers, and those who are doing the mahi on the ground. They acknowledge the value of Whānau Ora support and the support from this Government received, and they also appreciated the flexible nature with which that support was provided during this time of crisis.

💬 Soraya Peke-Mason: What else is the Government doing to support Māori communities?

💬 Hon PEENI HENARE: Alongside the Minister for Māori Development and the Minister for Te Arawhiti, a further $15 million was announced last week to accelerate the Māori response to Cyclone Gabrielle. The funding will support the continued coordination of services, ensuring whānau are accessing their full and correct entitlements, integrating Government supports to provide holistic responses to whānau needs, and supporting their planning for future resilience. This includes but is not limited to access to funding for marae rebuild or clean-up, papakāinga rebuild or clean-up, and mental and physical health support, as well as the holistic wraparound support. We should all be very proud of the work that Whānau Ora has done during this time.

Question No. 11—Public Service

11. to the Minister for the Public Service: What actions, if any, has he taken to address the use of contractors and consultants in the Public Service?

I am continuing the actions of my predecessor—[Interruption] I’ll start that again. I am continuing the astute actions of my predecessor in ensuring the use by the Public Service of contractors and consultants is properly monitored and managed. In 2018, this Government removed the cap on the core Government administration, which is what drove up contractors under the last Government, and conveyed through the Public Service Commissioner to all Public Service agencies the expectation that they invest in building their core Public Service and reduce their reliance on external capability. We implemented a more transparent reporting method that now accurately reports on the spend of contractors and consultants. That spend is reported to the Public Service Commission on a quarterly basis. These measures saw the spending on contractors and consultants in the Public Service fall from 13.4 percent of spending on Public Service workforce in 2017/2018 to 10.4 percent in 2020/2021. The proportion rose in the 2021/2022 financial year to 14.6 percent because of COVID-19 and the Government’s reform programme. Change requires the core Public Service to engage external expertise in the form of contractors and consultants for short periods of time from time to time. If the member expects every problem to be addressed by adding a permanent fulltime-equivalent employee to the Public Service, then the permanent Public Service would be significantly larger than it is now.

💬 Simeon Brown: Has he or his predecessor sent a memo or a minute to the Public Service Commissioner asking him to direct the Public Service to reduce its reliance on contractors and consultants; if not, why not?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I draw the member’s attention to my answer to his primary question, which is that we now engage in active monitoring of the Public Service’s use of contractors and consultants, and that is reported on a quarterly basis to the Public Service Commission, and that informs the actions of both the commission and, of course, of Public Service management.

💬 Simeon Brown: Will his active monitoring include sending a minute or a memo to the Minister of Transport for spending over $50 million on contractors and consultants for Auckland light rail, which has gone nowhere?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: What’s important to recognise is that when, as this Government has faced many times, we have urgent situations arising—whether it’s a worldwide pandemic or whether it’s a cyclone response—we have in place measures across our Public Service to provide support to people who need it most. So, for example, in the wake of the recent Cyclone Gabrielle, we’ve been able to put in place very, very quickly the means to get financial assistance to farmers and growers and members of the community who need it urgently. The member opposite and his party may trivialise the capability of the Public Service to do that, but it’s absolutely vital to support our communities in their time of need.

💬 Simeon Brown: Point of order. The question was in regards to his monitoring and whether that would include expenditure on light rail. I didn’t hear any reference to that through the entirety of that answer.

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, but the question also had a major assertion in it that was addressed. Any further supplementary?

💬 Hon Michael Wood: Can the Minister confirm that significant transport projects such as the Eastern Busway, which have wide support in this House, cannot be delivered without the use of specialist contractors?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member makes a very important point that this is a Government that has totally embraced the need to step up the quality and capability of our transport networks, including our roading transport, that had been neglected for nine years under the previous Government because they froze funding and redirected funding to a very small number of large projects. In order to carry out projects that make a big difference to our metropolitan centres, as well as our provincial centres, we need short-term expertise to come in and assist with the design and delivery of that capability.

💬 Simeon Brown: Does he think that spending $72 million on contractors and consultants last year to restructure the entire health system in the middle of a pandemic is a good use of taxpayers’ money, and, if not, will he be sending a minute or a memo to the former Minister of Health?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The objectives of the health reform were to, first of all, make sure that rather than having 20 centres of decision making and operation, we consolidate that into one to ensure that we get consistency of healthcare across the country. It also ensured that the appalling performance that our health system has had for Māori health is actually radically trained by the institution of Te Aka Whai Ora—Māori Health Authority to provide leadership and te tino rangatiratanga for Māori for their health needs, and that’s an important investment that will last decades into the future and better serve the needs of all New Zealand communities.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Would the Minister consider a report that cost $200,000 pro bono work, as the former chair of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council appears to do with the McKinsey report, which he called pro bono this morning on TV, but, in fact, cost $200,000?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I think it is important that, in the Public Service, we do get our definitions correct, and that “pro bono” means that you don’t pay anything for it, and that advice to us for $200,000 is labelled as “advice costing $200,000”. If it comes from McKinsey, then it has come from a consultant.

💬 Simeon Brown: Does he think he will have any more success than his predecessor in getting the Public Service to reduce its reliance on expensive contractors and consultants, and, if so, why?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I draw the member’s attention to my answer to his primary question, where I outlined, actually, the achievement of my predecessor in getting down the proportion of Public Service spend on consultants. But what we can’t predict or control for is the outbreak of a worldwide pandemic.

Question No. 12—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

12. to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What additional services is the Government rolling out to support homeowners affected by natural disasters?

This Government has worked swiftly to get a new service up and running to support homeowners whose properties have been affected by extreme weather events or natural disasters like we’ve seen in Nelson, Auckland, Tai Rāwhiti, Coromandel, and the Hawke’s Bay. The New Zealand Claims Resolution Service (NZCRS) will provide expert support to homeowners with insurance claims after natural disasters to avoid disputes, resolve issues, and ensure claims are settled as quickly as possible.

💬 Rachel Brooking: What model does the National Claims Resolution Service follow, and why?

💬 Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: This kind of service was used to great effect in response to the Canterbury earthquakes to provide free advice to homeowners. It’s become a much needed one-stop shop for homeowners needing help with unresolved insurance claims, and it’s often proved a breakthrough. This Christchurch initiative helped over 10,000 homeowners, and satisfaction surveys showed that 90 percent of respondents say they would recommend the service. So we’re expanding this fantastic service that worked well in Christchurch to make it a permanent and nationwide service—

💬 Matt Doocey: It started under us—started in 2014.

💬 Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —for all forms of natural hazard. Thank you for your congratulations, Mr Doocey.

💬 Rachel Brooking: When should people contact this service?

💬 Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The first port of call is always to work things through with the insurer, but if homeowners get stuck or need support with unresolved claims, then that’s the time to contact this new service. I learnt from Christchurch that early intervention before things go wrong and independent technical and legal advice are key, and that’s what this service does. The new national service will now mean homeowners get the right advice at the right time.

💬 Rachel Brooking: How many people has the service helped to date?

💬 Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Great news. Since the North Island events, this service has helped more than 230 people. It’s resolved 200 cases already with many of these cases needing just a steer on the next steps as to what they should do. Of course, it’s early days for this event, and as time goes by more complex issues will occur, and the service is ready to support those people, to empower homeowners with the knowledge they need to resolve their claims. I would say to anyone struggling with their insurance claim that there are great people waiting to help you at the NZCRS, who are both knowledgeable and compassionate; call them.

Point of Order—Scope of Supplementary Questions

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. When you review question time, I think you’ll note that at question Nos 3, 6, and 11, members of Government benches asked questions of Ministers that commenced with “Can the Minister confirm”, followed by matters seeking to inject information or propaganda, as described in Speakers’ rulings 183/7(1) and (2). It would be helpful to know whether or not those Speakers’ rulings still stand.

I’ll come back to you.