Oral Questions

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

Yes, particularly the policies announced this week to break the cycle of offending, back the police to fight crime, and increase the accountability of offenders. These changes include a new aggravating factor to crack down on adults who commission or reward young people to commit crime, an aggravating factor to better hold to account people who post their crimes online, changes to the Family Court that will allow the Family Court to require young offenders to participate in community service programmes, the building of two new youth justice facilities for up to 30 high-needs youth, and changes to improve family group conferences—among other changes. This Government is very much focused on the three pillars of prevention, protection, and responsibility.

💬 David Seymour: Does he, then, stand by his statement that “Using a child to commit a crime is cowardly, exploitative, and destroys lives, so the consequences must be serious”; and, if so, does the Government have any policy to make using a child to commit a crime a new offence in itself?

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated yesterday, what we’re doing is adding an aggravating factor to an existing offence that already exists. That, effectively, allows for the pass-through of that offence to the person who commissioned the crime. For example, if an adult used a young person to commit an aggravated burglary, which has a maximum sentence of 14 years, the adult who commissioned that could be liable to that sentence themselves.

💬 David Seymour: What does he say to someone like Bhavana Patel of Jyotis Dairy in the Mt Roskill electorate, who was bashed with a hammer while trying to make an honest living, when the Prime Minister of the country doesn’t even know the difference between a crime in the Crimes Act and an aggravating factor in the Sentencing Act? What does he say to her?

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I say to her that I’d never use a tragic incident like that, which is utterly unacceptable, for political purposes.

💬 David Seymour: Can he understand why victims like Mrs Patel, who I spoke to just last week, might be angry that someone who’s overseen a 122 percent increase in serious assaults causing injury, over five years, decides to introduce tougher penalties only 88 days from an election but still can’t get the most basic details right; who is cynical about crime and politics now?

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I would say that the victims of those crimes have a right to feel angry about them. They have a right to feel aggrieved about them. And the Government is absolutely committed to addressing those issues. I would also point out that the increase in violent crimes that the member has referred to includes an increase in the reporting of family violence, something that the members on this side of the House have encouraged, and in fact we have introduced new offences in that area, which have also contributed to that increase in the overall reporting of violent crime.

💬 David Seymour: Has he read the recently released Treasury advice about the school lunch programme, saying “have found no impact on attendance, and ākonga Māori, who make up around 48 percent of students receiving the programme, have not benefited on most metrics, such as school functioning (e.g., paying attention in class), health, and mental wellbeing (with mental wellbeing worse off for those in the programme).”?

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m aware of the Treasury report. I’m also aware of countless reports from school teachers and principals who disagree with it.

💬 David Seymour: Does he stand by his answer to my question on 9 May: “Well, I’ll give the member one policy initiative: there are 220,000 children who go to school every day and receive a free and healthy lunch because of the policies introduced by this Government.”?

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes.

💬 David Seymour: Does he recall that that answer was to the question “can he give a measurable example of any Government service that is 34 percent better today than it was five years ago?”; and, if he can remember that, why did he use an example that Treasury shows has not resulted in measurable improvements and, in some cases, made the outcomes worse?

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because that programme is 100 percent better than it was five years ago, when it didn’t even exist.

💬 David Seymour: Does he stand by his statement “It’s not right for households to be tightening their belts if the Government isn’t also being seen to be doing the same” and can he think seriously that the average household is sitting there saying, “Yes, I’m spending 30 percent more money but getting no measurable improvement in outcomes” and that it’s OK to make churlish and snide answers like the one he just gave?

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, if I wanted lessons in “churlish and snide”, I’d only need to look at the member for an example on that. But the member’s use of the figures that he does fails to account for where that money has gone, which includes pay increases for our nurses, our doctors, our teachers; more police on the beat; an increase in the population; more older people requiring more healthcare—the list could go on—more people eligible for New Zealand superannuation. I know the member wants to cut all of those things.

💬 David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister just give us one example of an improved outcome—a result for New Zealanders—that has come from his Government spending 34 percent more money, adjusted for inflation, in the time it’s been in office?

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Thousands of people are getting better access to healthcare under this Government. There are kids going to school, now, who are getting access to learning support, who didn’t get access to learning support under the previous Government. The Government has significantly increased our investment in infrastructure so that we can do things like repair potholes, which were run down under the last Government.

💬 Hon Marama Davidson: Is he aware that evaluations of Ka Ora, Ka Ako to date have found strong outcomes for improving nutrient intake, particularly for those 7.3 percent of ākonga with less access to sufficient food at home, and does he agree that improved nutrient intake is a better measure for a lunch programme than improved school attendance?

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I believe it’s a good measure. It’s not the only measure; there are a number of measures. But I’ve spoken to school teachers, for example, who have indicated that kids’ concentration is better in the afternoon because they have had a lunch to eat during the day. I’ve spoken to school principals who have said that some of the kids who were difficult to get to go to school previously have been attending school more regularly as a result of the free and healthy lunches programme. And, yes, the nutritional intake is better, because we’ve put a lot of time and energy into looking at the sorts of foods that are being served in schools, to make sure that we’re improving the health outcomes for those kids, as well as the educational outcomes.

Question No. 2—Energy and Resources

2. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How is the Government partnering with businesses to support the uptake of low emissions technology?

Through the Low Emission Transport Fund, the Government is partnering with 19 businesses to support the uptake and roll-out of innovative low-emissions marine and off-road technology. While the Government is making significant progress in supporting the transition of the light vehicle fleet, emissions in the marine and off-road sector are harder to abate. Our partnerships with businesses will help to de-risk these projects, speed up the uptake, and provide opportunities to demonstrate new low-emissions technology.

💬 Naisi Chen: How is the Government partnering with the marine businesses to decarbonise their fleets?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Each year, our maritime and off-road sectors together use an estimate 1.6 billion litres of petrol and diesel, which equates to around 13 percent of New Zealand’s total energy-related greenhouse gas emissions. To accelerate the decarbonisation of the marine sector, we’re partnering with the likes of CentrePort to roll out shore-based power to Wellington ferries, and Next Generation Boats Ltd to deploy electric boats—including for tourism—as part of our plan to support the marine sector to decarbonise.

💬 Naisi Chen: How is the Government supporting the uptake of low-emissions off-road technology?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Technology to support the transition for our off-road and heavy vehicles sector is rapidly evolving, and the Government is partnering with businesses to help de-risk the roll-out of these vehicles here in New Zealand. We’ve partnered with TDX Ltd to support the demonstration of the three electric wheel loaders, including one pre-production Volvo 20-tonne electric wheel loader, and we’re working with Brian Perry Civil Ltd to roll out an electric excavator and wheel loader to support the creation of a zero emissions construction crew.

💬 Naisi Chen: How else is the Government partnering with businesses to decarbonise transport?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Recently, the Prime Minister announced a broad range of measures that go beyond transport—to partner with New Zealand Steel to install an electric arc furnace which will remove 800,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year; that’s the equivalent of taking 300,000 cars off the road. This is New Zealand’s biggest ever emissions reduction project and the first of our large emitter partnerships through the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Yes, in particular my decision to lead a trade mission to China in June this year, which helped to deliver on a number of priorities that will grow our exports, create jobs, and increase incomes. The economic relationship between New Zealand and China is worth around $40 billion annually to New Zealanders. Among the agreements that we were able to renew included agreements in tourism cooperation, forestry cooperation, and agricultural cooperation. We saw the launch of new direct airline routes to New Zealand, adding thousands more seats every month. We were able to take the opportunity to promote New Zealand as a travel destination to a very significant Chinese consumer base. And, of course, I was able to welcome international students from China back to New Zealand, who make up 35 percent of all international students who come to New Zealand. This Government’s record on trade speaks for itself. As a result of our commitment to trade, the share of our exports covered by trade agreements will increase by nearly 50 percent—another example of how this Government is backing our Kiwi exporters.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why did his finance Minister say that a wealth tax is “something I would have liked to happen” on the same day that the Prime Minister tried to rule it out from overseas?

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, I didn’t try; I did.

💬 Christopher Luxon: We don’t know about that yet. Is it normal for the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Revenue to publicly back major tax changes that the Prime Minister has tried to rule out; or is that just how things work in his Cabinet today?

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I did rule it out, and I would note that a number of Ministers put up bids during the Budget process which they support, which ultimately don’t proceed through the Budget process. That’s not unique to this Government; that happens in every Government.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Can he confirm that all work on new taxes at Treasury and IRD has now stopped?

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No further work will be done on those things ahead of the election, clearly.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Which tax policy does his Minister of Finance and his Minister of Revenue support: the one he’s trying to run on or the one that the Greens are?

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The one Cabinet agree.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why is it that if you ask three Labour Ministers on what the tax policy is, you get three different answers?

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject that.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why did he tell New Zealanders he wouldn’t introduce any new taxes and then have public officials spend nine months working on them?

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I’ve indicated before, my decision to rule those out happened before the Budget, and I stand by that decision.

💬 Christopher Luxon: How can New Zealand—[Interruption] sorry?

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: No, no. Carry on.

💬 Christopher Luxon: No, I will. I will. Don’t worry, we’ve got years of this—[Interruption] How can New Zealanders take his new commitments on tax seriously when he didn’t—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can we hear that question, please?

💬 Christopher Luxon: Yes. Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a very good question. How can New Zealanders take his new commitments on tax seriously when he didn’t uphold his old ones?

💬 Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I utterly reject that.

Question No. 4—Health

4. to the Minister of Health: What announcement has the Government made about removing the postcode lottery for cataract surgery?

It has been a priority for this Government to eliminate the inconsistency patients experience when they need surgical treatment because of where they live—the so-called “postcode lottery”. That’s why I was proud to announce that an estimated 3,500 more cataract surgeries will be delivered as a result of a new nationally consistent threshold for surgery. A nationally consistent threshold will remove the postcode lottery that has denied some New Zealanders access to this life-changing procedure.

💬 Dr Tracey McLellan: Why is the Government implementing a nationally consistent threshold?

💬 Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: For decades, the former district health boards used a point system that held widely differing thresholds for access to cataract surgery, varying from 46 to 61 points. A score of 46 points represents mildly reduced vision; a score of 61 represents poor vision, that a person could no longer legally drive. In Auckland and Waitematā, for example, you could become eligible for a cataract operation with a score of 46, but in Canterbury and Southern, you needed a score of 61. That variation represented the worst of what’s become widely known as “postcode lottery” in healthcare, and it isn’t fair.

💬 Dr Tracey McLellan: Given that, what will the nationally consistent threshold for cataract surgery now be?

💬 Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: In a first under the new health system, there will a nationally consistent score of a maximum of 46 in order to access surgery, opening up eligibility for approximately 3,500 more surgeries. A score of 46 means patients with mildly reduced vision—such as a result of cataracts—will have much earlier access to surgery, improving their quality of life considerably.

💬 Dr Tracey McLellan: How will this be implemented?

💬 Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: In the Budget, we allocated $180 million to reduce wait-lists and standardise access to healthcare, including cataract surgery. Te Whatu Ora’s hospital and specialist team will work with referring specialists to identify who will be eligible under the new score and ensure they have timely access to the procedure. Actions being taking by Te Whatu Ora include initiatives such as outsourcing to other providers and ophthalmologists, as well as improving the productivity through innovative models of care and improving theatre efficiency.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement in June this year that “the extent of the Government’s work on tax was outlined after the 2020 election. That has been the work programme for tax”, and is that consistent with the months spent working on proposals for new taxes, including a minimum tax, wealth tax, and a capital gains tax intended to be part of Budget 2023?

I stand by my statement of 21 June 2023 in its full and proper context. This includes my answer to the member’s primary question, which was, “…the Budget process for 2023 began around August of last year, and, as at all Budgets, it considered whether specific tax changes were appropriate”, and then the full statement in the supplementary question, “…the extent of the Government’s work on tax was outlined after the 2020 election. That has been the work programme for tax. In respect of the Budget, we had the announcement on the trustee tax rate. In respect of this Government, those are the actions on tax that we are taking.” The Government’s tax policy work programme was last published on 20 July 2021, and included decisions that the Government had taken at that time, including, for instance, the removal of mortgage interest deductibility. As such, the answer to the second part of the question is yes. As indicated above, Ministers did receive advice on tax changes during the course of the Budget process, including ones that Cabinet did not agree to proceed with.

💬 Nicola Willis: At what point after the 2020 election did he front up to New Zealanders that he had commissioned extensive work to design massive new taxes documented in these reports, including proposals for a minimum tax, wealth tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax, gift tax, corrective taxes—all paid for by taxpayers?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As noted in my primary answer, at this Budget, as indeed at many Budgets in the past, work was done on potential alternative tax policies. For example, the Government’s tax policy work programme 2009-2010 did not include the following measures that were included in Budget 2010: the increasing of the rate of GST from 12.5 percent to 15 percent, a cut in the company tax rate, ending landlords and businesses’ ability to claim depreciation on buildings with an estimated useful life of 50 years or more, a cut in the top tax rate for most portfolio investment entities from 30 percent to 28 percent, and changes to the thin capitalisation tax rules. The Budget process is the process in which ideas are tested and explored.

💬 Nicola Willis: On what date did the Prime Minister inform him that he would rule out the introduction of a wealth tax?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In the lead-up to the final Budget paper going to Cabinet, which I believe was on 11 April.

💬 Nicola Willis: Is he aware of a statement by Labour Party finance spokesperson on 9 September 2020 that Labour will not implement any new taxes next term, and, if so, does the Minister think the finance Minister has acted consistent with that in commissioning extensive work for months, designing new taxes?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, the member may or may not be aware that, has she not worked her way through those documents, the proposals being made would not have come into force in terms of new taxes until after the election. In the event, as we all now know, it didn’t happen.

💬 Nicola Willis: Why, on 16 February, did he direct his officials to focus on proposals for a wealth tax, rather than the minimum tax he had previously prioritised, and was it because he felt newly enabled by the election of Prime Minister Hipkins?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That was part of the evolving work programme. In answer to the second part of the question, the arrival of Prime Minister Hipkins gave me and others in this caucus pause to reflect on a number of different issues. The member is aware of the reprioritisation programme that has taken place.

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: Can the Minister give an assurance that Government’s policy on GST before the election will be the same as the Government’s policy on GST after the election?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely, and as I indicated, in 2009-10 that was not something that was on the work programme of the Government but, magically, GST did increase from 12.5 percent to 15 percent. I’ll also be interested to see the consistency of tax policy, for instance, on the top tax rate—whether that’s going to be reduced—and a number of other measures that we will see whether they’re consistent.

💬 Nicola Willis: When the Minister says the Prime Minister informed him a wealth tax wasn’t a goer anymore, can he clarify the statement in the official advice he received which states, “The decision has been taken that now is not the right time for these changes.”, and can he confirm that there may indeed be a future time where he will consider it the right time to impose hefty new wealth taxes on New Zealanders?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In the words of that member’s leader, “we’ve got years of this”.

💬 Nicola Willis: Is that a bid for the Labour Party leadership?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, but it is for you!

💬 Nicola Willis: Is the Minister concerned that the Prime Minister keeps killing his pet projects—first the jobs tax, then his wealth tax fantasy—and if the Prime Minister doesn’t trust this finance Minister, then why should New Zealanders?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I am not concerned about that. What I am concerned about is the prospect of a Government coming in and deciding that now is the time to cut taxes when we need to invest more in health, when we need to invest more in education, when we need to invest more in housing. I’m worried about a Government that thinks there should be a top tax rate of 28c, which will mean billions of dollars of cuts right across public services. That’s what really concerns me.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why is the Government saying that they don’t have a mandate to implement taxes on wealth or capital gains when polling shows that 53 percent of New Zealanders—a higher proportion than voted for Labour in the 2020 election—support a wealth tax?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Unfortunately, mandates are not delivered by polls.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Was the decision not to proceed with a capital gains tax or a wealth tax informed by the IRD high-wealth individuals research, and, if not, does he think that that decision should be revisited in light of research that shows that the wealthiest people in this country pay on average a lower effective tax rate than the average New Zealander?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Cabinet has made the decision not to advance that work.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he believe, then, that the revenue generated from a wealth tax or a capital gains tax would enable greater investment in public services and help lift thousands of children out of poverty, and, if so, why has the Government ruled it out?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There are many different ways to achieve the goals that the member suggests in her question.

Question No. 6—Justice

6. to the Minister of Justice: What steps is the Government taking to crack down on youth offending and gang offending?

Yesterday, the Government announced steps to crack down on recent increases in criminal offending, to break the cycle of crime, and to make sure offenders are held to account. We will introduce a new aggravating factor for posting offending behaviour online—to apply to adults and young people—and provide the courts with an additional consideration when sentencing. It will send a strong signal that this behaviour is unacceptable. We’ll also introduce an aggravating factor for commissioning or rewarding children and young people who offend. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, these actions are cowardly, they are exploitative and harmful to the children involved, so the consequences must be serious.

💬 Vanushi Walters: Why are these steps needed?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: These steps are needed because this is about prevention, protection, and accountability. These changes will make offenders more accountable, back our police with greater powers, and work to break the cycle of offending. We know that there is an organised criminal element to much of the recent offending, so, in addition to the offending done for the notoriety on social media, these new aggravating factors give police the tools in the tool box to crack down. This isn’t about locking our children and perpetuating the cycle of crime; it’s about making sure that young offenders know that their actions have consequences. Our interventions that we have introduced have been working. The early intervention programme targeting recidivist child offenders has been highly successful, alongside the Kotahi te Whakaaro programme. We’ll continue the work that’s already under way to keep young people away from crime in the first place.

💬 Vanushi Walters: What other announcements has the Government made recently?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Yesterday, the Government also announced that we are introducing greater accountability to those most impacted by crime. For offending by children and young people—from the age of 10—the Family Court will be given the ability to require offenders to undertake community activities, including, for example, cleaning graffiti, picking up rubbish, and those types of measures. The Family Court will also be able to require that an offender attend an educational, recreational, or activity programme. This is vital to get young offenders re-engaged and back on track. It builds on the work we’re doing to improve school attendance as well—back on track. Finally, we’re backing the police by boosting the prosecution service with an additional $26 million to help clear the case backlog in the District Court.

💬 Vanushi Walters: How will the new funding help reduce the case backlog in the District Court?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The funding announced yesterday will allow police to add up to 78 fulltime-equivalent staff to prepare their in-court work against those who’ve committed serious crimes. The funding is designed to ensure better use of resources and court time, to resolve cases earlier and with fewer court appearances. This funding works alongside a range of other initiatives already under way to address delays in the court, including increasing the number of judges in the Court of Appeal, High Court, and District Court—that’s work through to 2025—opening the Newmarket Court Hearing Centre in March 2023 to provide additional capacity for the Manukau District Court; a joint work programme with Te Whatu Ora, the Ministry of Health, and Corrections to address issues around court-ordered forensic reports; establishing the Family Court Associates position; and the use of Kaiārahi—Family Court Navigators—and resources and information for care of children to provide quality, accessible information so that participants understand their options, both in and out of court, to resolve care of children matters.

Question No. 7—Justice

7. to the Minister of Justice: Does she believe her Government has the right policies in justice; if so, why?

Yes. As I just addressed in the previous statement to the House, we’ve been working on a range of measures to address a recent spike in youth offending. In addition, we are tackling organised crime through measures, including the new Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Act, which was recently used in the events in Ōpōtiki to search vehicles, seize weapons, and make arrests of gang members. Further, we have prioritised victims. Since 2017, this Government has doubled funding for victim support and tripled support for the Victims Assistance Scheme. We are improving legal protections—for example, for victims of sexual and serious violence, through new legislation to give sexual assault victims more control in court processes, particularly around name suppression. Our focus is a justice system where victims feel safe, heard, and empowered.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will she concede now that her Government’s priority to reduce the prison population by 30 percent, regardless of what’s happening on the ground, has been misguided and has contributed to the explosion in crime that the Prime Minister referred to yesterday?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: No. Public safety has always been a top priority for our Government. Where people commit serious crimes, they will do that time. I note that violent criminals are still being imprisoned; that hasn’t changed. The reduced prison population hasn’t led to crime sprees or an overwhelming majority of reduction for people in jail for non-violent crimes, and the stats back it up. We have safely reduced the prison population by 21 percent and we’re doing this by helping non-violent eligible prisoners with the bail process.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Was she consulted on the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday that the Government will prioritise creating a new offence for those who use young people to commit a crime, punishable with prison for up to 10 years?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Yes, that was a Cabinet decision.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why would the public have confidence in the Government’s new enthusiasm for cracking down on crime is genuine, when it has emerged just three months before an election?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I refute the proposition in that question. This Government has been focused on law and order and making sure that New Zealanders are kept safe. We’ve increased police numbers. We’ve introduced a series of legislative reforms, including particularly CAIL. CAIL is, as the member will be well aware, the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Act. This is a piece of legislation that has been seen to be critically important for the police and, indeed, it was something that they have been relying on in a range of different circumstances. Our job as governors is to continue to build on that programme, and the announcements that we made yesterday, and indeed today, continue to address the issues in law and order that we continue to see.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does the Government determine its priorities in justice when the Prime Minister says there’s been an explosion in crime, but the Deputy Prime Minister says of crime in Auckland, “Oh, I wouldn’t say it’s bad at all.”? How can a Government determine priorities when there’s no agreement on the scale of the problem that it’s trying to fix?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Oh, there’s a very clear agreement. Cabinet has made a raft of decisions in the law and order space and will continue to do so.

Question No. 8—Health (Pacific Peoples)

8. to the Associate Minister of Health (Pacific Peoples): What actions has the Government taken based on the consultations and reviews of the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 since 2017, and will she introduce legislation on this subject in this Parliament?

Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. In response to the last question, I am open to amending the Act, but no policy decisions have been made to do so. No changes will be introduced before the House rises next month. In response to the first part of the question, the Ministry of Health – Manatū Hauora ran a public consultation process on possible options to modernise the legislation in late 2019. That consultation followed a review by the Law Commission, which concluded that the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 is outdated and should be repealed and replaced with new legislation. The ministry’s public consultation process identified further areas that needed consideration. Since then, health officials have been engaging further with individuals and community groups who have an interest in this area of reform. One issue being actively considered is whether a broader range of factors needed to be considered, the impact of non-regulatory changes such as implementing online death certification, and updating guidance for practitioners.

💬 Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: So with the consultation the Minister has undertaken, has that included with community sector groups such as Ngā Pou Herenga—the Funeral Guides Collective—and, if so, was there specific consultation with tangata whenua, who act as funeral guides on marae and in their communities?

💬 Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: I’m advised that Manatū Hauora officials undertook public consultation in 2019 and 2020 on potential options to modernise the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 in relation to legislation. The group Death Without Debt provided a public submission and met with officials in August last year to discuss the burial and cremation work programme and policy proposals. Health officials contacted a number of Māori providers based on iwi and hapū listed in Te Kāhui Māngai—the directory of iwi and Māori organisations—as well as other groups such as the New Zealand Māori Council. Manatū Hauora asked these groups and organisations to submit on the consultation document and to disseminate it amongst their members. There were a total of 196 submissions on the consultation. This included submissions from Ngāi Tahu Māori Law Centre; Ngāheke, Waiwhetu Marae; Te Korowai o Ngāruahine Trust; and Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board. In addition, there were 14 individual submitters who identified as Māori.

💬 Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: What affordable options for whānau has the Minister considered, if any, outside of the private funeral industry, that currently enjoys a captive market for pre - cremation and burial paperwork in almost all after-death care?

💬 Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: I’m very aware of the costs for whānau in the private funeral industry. Health officials are continuing to work on options in this area. That advice has not yet been received. In other portfolios, there are a number of Government initiatives to support whānau who might be struggling with the costs associated with funerals. For example, depending on the circumstances, grants may be available from agencies including the Ministry of Social Development, ACC, and a range of charitable organisations.

💬 Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: What does the Minister say to advocacy group Death Without Debt—who are in the gallery today—who are concerned about funeral-driven poverty, in her call for extending the health and disability code to include after-death care so doctors complete pre - cremation and burial paperwork and the public is not forced to depend on the private funeral industry to do so?

💬 Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: I am aware of and empathise with Death Without Debt’s concerns. I acknowledge the work they do and their members’ advocacy. Manatū Hauora is still considering work in this space and expects to provide further advice in the next few months.

💬 Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Has the Minister considered the impact that severe weather events have on tangihanga and funerals in areas such as Te Tairāwhiti, where we must cremate our loved ones, such as we did two weeks ago with my uncle Kahu Smiler, because the high water table will preclude burials, potentially, for months?

💬 Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: First of all, my condolences to the member for her whānau’s loss. I have not received any advice on this issue. However, the management of cemeteries and burial grounds is the responsibility of local authorities, and those decisions sit with local authorities.

Question No. 9—Transport

9. to the Minister of Transport: What is the current State highway maintenance budget for 2021-24, and how does this compare to 2015-18?

The Government is spending more on road maintenance, including on pothole repairs, than any previous Government. The current State highway maintenance budget is $2.8 billion for the period 2021-24, a 65 percent increase on the $1.7 billion from 2015-18. With the increased frequency of severe weather events, increasing the resilience of our roading networks is critical to our economy. Maintenance spending on all roads, including local roads, has increased by 54 percent since this Government took office. This has meant we have been able to fund huge increases in pothole repairs and road resurfacing.

💬 Shanan Halbert: How many potholes did Waka Kotahi repair in 2022-23, and is this an increase?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, in 2022-23, Waka Kotahi repaired 60,989 potholes. This compares with just 12,739 pothole repairs in 2013-14. That’s an almost 500 percent increase in pothole repairs.

💬 Shanan Halbert: What percentage of the network needs to be resurfaced each year to maintain the State highway network—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: This is embarrassing.

💬 Shanan Halbert: —and what recent trends in the resurfacing is he aware of?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Thank you. I really need to hear the question so I can rule if it’s in order or out of order. I want to hear the question.

💬 Shanan Halbert: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What percentage of the network needs—

💬 Hon Todd McClay: And Bidois is out doorknocking.

💬 SPEAKER: Who was that? Are you going to stand and withdraw?

💬 Hon Todd McClay: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Shanan Halbert: What percentage of the network needs to be resurfaced each year to maintain the State highway network, and what recent trends in resurfacing is he aware of?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Resurfacing, of course, is absolutely critical, because if you don’t resurface the road, when the road gets dished with heavy trucks and cracks, the rain gets in, and you get potholes. So what is needed to prevent that, according to Waka Kotahi, is around 9 percent or 2,000 kilometres of the State highways need to be resurfaced each year. Other than during the first wave of COVID, this Government has delivered more than 2,000 kilometres of road resurfacing every full year we’ve been in Government. In contrast, between 2013-14 and 2015-16, road resurfacing halved to 4.5 percent—half of the 9 percent required.

💬 Shanan Halbert: Is he satisfied with the current level of road maintenance in New Zealand?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, I’m satisfied that we have been catching up on a lot of road maintenance. I’m also aware that the severe weather events that we’ve had this year, particularly in the upper half of the North Island, are absolutely unprecedented. So there’s still a lot of work to do, and this Government is committed to doing that work—committing to funding it, committing to doing it properly, and committing to funding it properly.

💬 Simeon Brown: Why is the New Zealand Transport Agency installing 21 speed bumps on State Highway 2 between Masterton and Featherston at a cost of up to $450,000 each, which will significantly reduce travel times on State Highway 2, and shouldn’t this money be spent actually fixing our roads instead?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Road safety improvements are important, and I have heard some members of this House say that we should cancel all of the TV campaigns, for example, on drink driving, safety speeds, and others—that would save $37 million a year. I’ve also heard other people say that we should spend less on traffic improvements like median barriers. We’re committed to rolling those out. In respect of speed bumps, look, I’m not attached to every speed bump in the country. Speed bumps are actually normally installed by councils rather than by central government, but if the member’s got some individual speed bumps that he’s worried about and he wants me to see if I can cancel them, send me a list and I’m happy to look at it.

💬 Shanan Halbert: Does the Government intend to defund police work on our main highways?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, the major component of the cost of safety measures that are funded by the Government is the approximately 1,000 police dedicated to traffic duties that the Government funds. It’s really important work, and there’s actually not a lot of money to be saved there that could be spent on potholes.

Question No. 10—Police

10. to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement, “It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer”; if so, why?

I stand by my full statement at the time it was given: “It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer with a Government on track to deliver 1,800 extra police.” I stand by that statement given the recent announcement the Government has made to empower police to crack down on youth offending, as well as gang offending—this includes introducing an aggravating factor that would apply whenever adults aid, abet, or incite a person under the age of 18 to carry out an offence. It would also make it an aggravating factor when posting offending behaviour online for both adults and also for young people. It includes introducing great accountability for youth offending by bringing youth justice tools and approaches into the Family Court. And, finally, I’m pleased to see a funding boost of $26 million for the Police Prosecution Service.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Is it correct that ram raids have increased by 40 percent in the last year?

💬 Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The current level of offending is entirely unacceptable, and that is why this Government is taking further action to break the cycle of offending and to hold those repeat offenders to account. The trend is down from a high in August, in 2022, but we have got a lot more work to do and we remain committed to doing that.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: So which is it: the trend is down or ram raids have increased by 40 percent in the last year?

💬 Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: They remain too high and that’s why we’re taking further actions to bring them down. I do acknowledge there has been an increase in ram raids, which peaked in August of last year. I remain committed to tackling the problem. While we have seen those numbers come down since August, I do not believe any ram raid is acceptable.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Why have ram raids increased since she became the Minister?

💬 Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: We have seen, as I have said, a peak in August of last year, but that is exactly why this Government is taking action to fund our front-line police, to make sure we have the resources there to prosecute, and to make sure that those young repeat offenders are brought to account. That is resourcing our front line, unlike that member’s previous Government that cut front-line resources.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Well, why was New Zealand safer under a National Government than it is under a Labour Government?

💬 Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Did that member say that he feels that all New Zealand—the track record for Labour is that we have delivered 1,800 extra police, we have put $35 million into retail crime prevention, we have enabled Operation Cobalt with 40,000 charges brought against gang members, we have rolled out the tactical response model right across to keep our cops safer, and we have introduced legislation that enables new warrant powers for intra-gang conflict. I put that up against the track record of the previous National Government, which closed over 30 police stations, which froze the police budget, which let police numbers fall, and cut victims’ funding.

Question No. 11—Police

11. to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has the Government made about the pursuit of criminal offending?

I was pleased to announce yesterday an additional $26 million for police prosecutions to help clear the case backlog in the District Court. This is a significant investment in police resources, which will lead to a strengthened prosecution service, and it means that police can take stronger cases against criminals that cause harm to our communities. Overall, police will get more resources devoted to their work, to improve the quality and the preparation for their in-court work. I have heard firsthand from our communities that they want the Government to go further in breaking the cycle of crime but also to hold accountable those repeat offenders. That is exactly why this Government is doing that by giving police the tools they need to get the results.

💬 Dr Emily Henderson: What practical impacts will this additional funding have?

💬 Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The police prosecution staff do a fantastic job, but they have been under considerable demand over the past few years. This is a significant investment that will help ease that pressure and help them to focus on greater outcomes for our communities. An additional 44 staff focused on in-court work will be funded by the initiative and a further 41 positions will be funded for key support roles to enable prosecutors to focus on in-court activities. There will also be a focus on the consistency of file preparation, and an increased use of digital files means the file quality will improve. This will allow disclosure of information in a more timely way and also reduce the number of adjournments due to disclosure delays.

💬 Dr Emily Henderson: What other improvements will be made?

💬 Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: An investment in case progression and resolution will involve improved processes and supporting how prosecution staff are deployed in each case and in each court. This investment will also mean more meaningful court appearances when the cases do arrive at court. Cases won’t need to go back time and time again, meaning fewer appearances in court. This will help with some of the demand pressures on the police front line, and they won’t need to repeatedly attend court. All these improvements will mean quicker progress for victims and provide a greater sense of justice as cases are resolved through the courts. We’ve heard from the community and are strengthening police to better represent and support victims through funding this increase.

💬 Dr Emily Henderson: How will this free up the police front line?

💬 Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: These changes are about raising accountability for those who commit crimes by ensuring that we have dedicated police resources that will be focused on working to prosecute offenders. Dedicated support staff will help our front line completing key administrative tasks. Our front-line staff will spend less time in court giving evidence as a result of having those decreased adjournments. All of these changes mean our front-line officers can spend more time in their communities rather than sitting at a desk dealing with administration. That’s a win for our police and a win for our communities.

Question No. 12—Education

12. to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all of her actions and policies?

Yes.

💬 Chris Baillie: Does she believe that spending $1 million on an attendance awareness campaign was good value for money when it was “not expected to have a direct quantifiable impact on attendance rates”?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: Yes.

💬 Chris Baillie: Does she believe spending $1.3 million on a new maths and statistics curriculum was good value for money; and, if so, how will “expressing the centrality of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles” teach 7-year-olds basic numeracy skills?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: Yes.

💬 Chris Baillie: Does she believe that spending $74 million for 82 new school attendance officer roles is good value for money; and, if so, how many attendance officers have been recruited to date?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: Yes.

💬 Chris Baillie: How can the public have confidence in her when she prioritises wasteful spending on vanity projects over basic things like making sure the next generation of New Zealanders knows how to read and write?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: All of those aspects and initiatives that the member has talked about are making a big difference to this country and to our young people. They are wonderful initiatives; wonderful programmes.