Oral Questions

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, particularly this Government’s work to build an economy that keeps wages growing ahead of inflation and maintains record low unemployment. Statistics New Zealand data out today shows median weekly earnings from wages and salaries grew 7.1 percent in the year to June 2023, ahead of the rate of inflation. We know that the most important thing we can do to help New Zealanders with the cost of living is ensure that they are in work with growing wages. I’m particularly proud that we have delivered unemployment below 4 percent for 24 consecutive months, a feat that has only been achieved on one other occasion in the last 30 years.

David Seymour: How much money does the Government currently collect in goods and services tax, or GST, on fresh fruit and vegetables, and can he confirm it’s approximately $500 million per year—$10 million per week or $2 per person per week?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The cost across the forecast period is about $2.2 billion.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister agree with his Government’s Tax Working Group, which said, “changes in rates for specific goods and services were on average not fully passed through and had an estimated average pass through rate of approximately 30 percent.”, and, if so, does he accept that taking $2 worth of GST off fresh fruit and vegetables per person would save the average person 60c a week?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.

David Seymour: Why not?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because I don’t agree with them.

David Seymour: Does he accept his Government’s Tax Working Group’s conclusion that low-income households’ benefit from taking GST off food would be three times less than high-income households’, and can he name any groceries a low-income shopper won’t need to take out of their trolley and put back on the shelf because the Government saved them 60c by no longer charging GST on fresh fruit and vegetables?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject the assertion in the last part of the member’s question.

David Seymour: Does he agree that the Government’s record of increasing spending by $56 billion per annum has led to a culture of extravagance where public servants think it’s acceptable to spend $40,000 on a leaving function, and what does it say that ACT has been able to identify a billion dollars of wasteful spending programmes that could be stopped immediately without anyone noticing except the people working in those bureaucracies?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I do note that some of the policies the ACT Party proposes to cut would result in significant job losses across the economy, including in the private sector. The ACT Party wants to cut all of the support for the screen sector in New Zealand—no more Hobbits, no more Lord of the Rings, no more Avatar; cut under an ACT-National Government. I notice they also want to cut the support for the space sector, so forget about Rocket Lab and other innovative industries that actually see New Zealand as a great place to base their operations; gone under an ACT-National Government. These would be private sector jobs gone. I can say to the members in the ACT Party and the National Party that a tax cut won’t mean much to people who lose their jobs because of their cuts.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister seriously expect New Zealanders to believe that Peter Beck’s success with Rocket Lab is because his Government employs 50-odd people, mostly hired after Rocket Lab hit lift-off, or is he really just worried that he’s going to need a new job soon and he’d like to be a hobbit in the next movie that’s sponsored by the Government?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, if the member thinks that we shouldn’t have a regulatory framework for space in New Zealand, he should talk to the previous Government, who were the ones who put it in place in the first place.

David Seymour: Would he say it’s a good example of the Government tightening its belt that Mac Leauanae’s $40,000 farewell from the Ministry for Pacific Peoples was followed by a welcome to the Ministry for Culture and Heritage that cost only $12,500, including $468.70 on flowers, which included 60 bucks of GST?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t believe that expenditure was appropriate.

David Seymour: Will he admit that the Government’s firearm reforms failed after five firearm deaths—half of New Zealand’s annual average of fatal shootings—occurred in just 17 days, or would he like to take this opportunity to argue that we’ll all be safe soon because those criminals and the crims who supplied them with illegal firearms will be registering their guns soon?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In fact, if Governments had worked earlier to remove illegal firearms from circulation, we might not be in the situation that we are in now. I welcome the fact that the member now seems to be backtracking on his unequivocal pledge to remove the firearms register—one of the tools the police have been asking for, for decades—that is being delivered by this Government and that would be at risk under an ACT-National Government.

David Seymour: Does his statement that “the healthcare system should be treating people equally”—is that a statement he stands by, and as Prime Minister is there anything he can do about race being used to prioritise surgical wait-lists, give out Prezzy cards exclusively to pregnant Māori women, a pharmacy service being accessible only to Māori and Pasifika, a separate Māori Health Authority, and a medical health line that opens with “Press 1 if you are Māori”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the member’s question, yes, absolutely. I recognise that our health system has delivered inequitable outcomes for Māori and Pacific New Zealanders, including New Zealanders in rural communities, for example, and proactive targeting of ensuring that we are creating equal outcomes for different population groups, I think, is a positive thing. I note the member isn’t attacking the fact that there are now targeted support services—health services—for rural communities in the way that he is some of those other population groups.

David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware that both Māori and non-Māori live in cities and in rural areas, and what New Zealanders object to deeply and strongly is the constant profiling of citizens by race by his Government?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I absolutely reject the statement in that question, which is just plain racism.

Question No. 2—Health

2. to the Minister of Health: What announcements has she made recently about improving the pay and conditions of nurses and midwives in New Zealand?

Last week, I was pleased to announce that New Zealand’s hard-working Te Whatu Ora hospital nurses and midwives have accepted their collective employment agreement. This was on top of the nursing pay equity settlement announced on 31 July and the increase in midwifery pay rates for pay equity announced on 6 July. This Government is proud to have delivered for nurses and midwives.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What will this mean for graduate nurses?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: When Labour came into Government in 2017, graduate nurses earned $49,449 a year. Over the first five years we were in Government, we increased these nurses’ pay to $59,834 a year. Now that pay equity has been settled and the collective has been agreed, these nurses now earn $73,566. Next year, in April, they will receive a further increase to $75,773. This is a total increase across our term of Government of 53.2 percent.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What will the announcement mean for registered nurses?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: When Labour came into Government in 2017, registered nurses on the top step of the pay scale earned $66,755. Over the first five years we were in Government, we increased these nurses’ pay to $83,186. Now that pay equity has been settled and the collective has been agreed, these nurses earn $103,630. Next year, in April, they will receive a further increase to $106,739. This is an increase of 59.9 percent since we entered Government.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: Why is this important to our health system?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The rates we pay our nurses in New Zealand are crucial to keeping them in our health system. Another priority is the wellbeing of our health workforce. Reaching agreement on these measures addresses many of the issues and concerns raised by the New Zealand Nurses Organisation during these negotiations. This Government is committed to addressing pressures on our health workers, and this settlement package is a step towards achieving that. I would like to acknowledge everyone involved in the bargaining process for both the collective and pay equity. The challenge of delivering healthcare in a complex and increasingly demanding environment is something we need to do together.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Yes, particularly this Government’s work to ease the cost of living and support New Zealand families and businesses through difficult economic conditions. We are building an economy that keeps wages growing ahead of inflation, that maintains record low unemployment. We’re taking practical steps to support families like removing the $5 prescription charge, extending targeted childcare assistance, extending 20 hours’ early childhood education to two-year-olds, and making public transport free for kids and at half-price for younger New Zealanders. Our policies are carefully designed to deal with the pressures families are facing right now while maintaining prudent levels of Government spending and keeping a lid on debt.

Christopher Luxon: Was his trade Minister, Damien O’Connor, right or wrong when he said “We probably don’t have enough tax in this country.”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member’s taking the Minister’s quote out of the full context in which it was made.

Christopher Luxon: Was former tax lecturer Deborah Russell right or wrong when she said removing interest deductibility from rental properties was “a bad idea” and that “Plenty of residential property investors would simply increase rents.”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government’s policy position on this is very clear and I think Deborah Russell is making a significant contribution in the tax area. I note that those comments were made over 10 years ago.

Christopher Luxon: Can he confirm that since the Government increased the cost of owning a rental property by removing interest deductibility, average weekly rents have increased by $75, just as Deborah Russell predicted?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I note that there has been a significant spike in inflation during that period.

Christopher Luxon: How much better or worse off would a typical low-income renter be if they save $2 a week on fruit and vegetables but were paying an extra $75 a week in rent?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government is doing a number of things to support low-income New Zealanders, including making sure that their incomes are keeping up with the rising costs that they are facing. Wage growth is growing ahead of inflation. That is one of the best things we can do to support families through this inflationary period. Bringing inflation down is also one of the good things that we can do to support them, and I note many of the policies the member is promoting would result in higher inflation for longer.

Christopher Luxon: Has he received advice about the number of IRD officials and lawyers that would be required to determine whether a mixed bag of salad or a vacuum-sealed beetroot count as processed or fresh?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.

Christopher Luxon: Was finance Minister Grant Robertson right or wrong when he said that cutting GST on some items will “mostly benefit supermarkets”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member himself has confessed to having a road to Damascus conversion. The policy that the Labour Party has announced, of course, will be implemented after the election. I welcome the member’s confidence in the re-election of this Government.

Christopher Luxon: Was the Government’s Tax Working Group, led by Sir Michael Cullen, right or wrong when they reported that evidence from 17 countries over 14 years found that only 30 percent of the benefits of GST exemptions were actually passed on to consumers?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I will allow everybody to make their own judgments on the Tax Working Group’s report. Of course, I note that there are some other recommendations in there that the member isn’t quite so enthusiastic about.

Christopher Luxon: Are there any members left in his Cabinet who actually support his tax policies or are they just waiting until the election so they can dump him and his desperate economic band-aid politics?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, at least I have a clear tax policy, which is more than the member has, and I think it’s because his co-leader hasn’t figured out how to pay for it yet.

Question No. 4—Women

4. to the Minister for Women: What recent announcements has the Government made on pay transparency?

Last week, Minister Priyanca Radhakrishnan and I were proud to announce the Government is taking action to close the gender pay gap for New Zealand’s women through a mandatory pay transparency reporting system. This is a significant next step to close the gender gap. It will mean 900 entities with over 250 employees will be required to publicly report their gender pay gap. This move is part of the Government’s ongoing commitment to make New Zealand an equitable and desirable place for people to live, work, and do business.

Sarah Pallett: What will the system look like?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Organisations with 250 employees or more will report their pay gap initially, and then organisations with over 100 employees will be required to report after four years. We expect around 900 organisations to be covered initially, increasing to 2,700 when the threshold reduces. The Government is also committed to exploring the inclusion of ethnicity and pay gap reporting for Māori, Pacific peoples, and other ethnic groups.

Sarah Pallett: Why is gender pay gap reporting important?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Gender pay gap reporting is one of several tools to address the gender pay gap and ensure equity in the workplace. Countries we compare ourselves to, including Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, have introduced gender pay gap reporting with successful results. I would like to note that today, the gender pay gap has reduced from 9.2 percent to 8.6 percent. That is excellent progress, but while a gap exists there is still more work to do.

Sarah Pallett: How does this complement the Government’s other work to close the gender pay gap?

Hon JAN TINETTI: We know from history that achieving gender equity isn’t an overnight fix but requires deliberate and concerted efforts. This Government has a strong track record of delivering for women in the workplace through increasing paid parental leave to 26 weeks, settling historic pay equity claims for close to 157,000 women, investing in KiwiSaver to match employer contribution to paid parental leave recipients, reducing the gender pay gap in the Public Service from 12.2 percent in 2019 to 7.7 percent, and reaching 50 percent representation of women on Government boards. There is still more work to do, but I am proud to be part of a Government that is putting in the tools we need to tackle the gender pay gap as a country.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions related to tax policy?

Yes, in the context in which they were made and undertaken, acknowledging that context can change as a result, for example, of global and domestic economic backdrops.

Nicola Willis: Does he stand by his reported statement that removing GST from fruit and vegetables would mostly benefit supermarkets, and, if not, why not?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe that the particular policies that the Labour Party has announced are important. They’re going to be useful in the future when the member clearly believes a Labour Government will be re-elected, but they are not the subject of my ministerial responsibilities.

Nicola Willis: Does he stand by his earlier statement—yes or no?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I stand by—as I said in my primary answer—statements in the contexts they were made. The member, however, does give me an excellent inspiration for this, because when she back-flipped on the medium-density housing rules and it was put to her that it was a U-turn, she said, “I don’t see it that way, I think it’s a step forward.” It’s a step forward.

Nicola Willis: Was his earlier statement based on the analysis by his own tax working group, which found that similar changes in Europe were not fully passed through and, on average, consumers only reaped 30 percent of the benefit?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: My earlier statements were based on the information I had at the time. My current statements are based on things which aren’t my ministerial responsibility, but, again, I’m glad to see the member’s endorsement of the Labour Party continuing in Government.

Nicola Willis: Does he agree with Grant Robertson MP, who said at the weekend that depreciation deductions for commercial buildings were “the last remaining … COVID … stimulus measure”, or was the Minister correct when he said that it was “not a temporary measure until we get back on our feet; it is, instead, a change to restore and correct policy settings.” and “not a short-term measure.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my primary answer, I stand by the statements I’ve made in the context in which they were made.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that a tax-free threshold paid for with a wealth tax would guarantee that more people have enough income to cover the essentials?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Obviously, that would depend on those people’s circumstances.

Nicola Willis: Has the Minister asked for advice on how much it would cost to provide the Grocery Commissioner with the army of officials he would require in order to enforce a GST policy which would deliver a 100 percent reduction on a pass-through on fruit and vegetables?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No.

Nicola Willis: Are there any other statements on tax he’s made that he would like to walk back today, or would he prefer to ask the Prime Minister first?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I’m very comfortable with the statements I’ve made. However, I am happy to reach out to the member and assist her with taking down all of the signs that she’s going to have to take down by midnight because they’re against the rules of the Wellington City Council.

Question No. 6—Trade and Export Growth

6. to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: What recent announcements has the Government made about sustainable and inclusive trade as part of the Trade for All agenda?

It was a privilege to be in Adelaide last week with my Closer Economic Relations (CER) colleague, the trade Minister for Australia, Don Farrell, and to conclude and sign a sustainable and inclusive trade declaration between Australia and New Zealand as we mark 40 years of closer economic relations. As close partners with shared values, both New Zealand and Australia believe in a trading system which sees everyone getting a fair go. This joint declaration is about upholding those values of sustainability and inclusion throughout the next 40 years of CER, and it sets out our commitment to work together on important issues like modern slavery, plastics pollution, climate change, and indigenous trade. The Government was proud to sign this declaration, progress our Trade for All agenda, and continue our world-leading work on sustainable and inclusive trade.

Dan Rosewarne: What work has the Government done to ensure the momentum of our Trade for All agenda continues into the future?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: More great news; last week the Government released our refreshed Trade, Environment, and Climate Change Framework and our refreshed Trade and Labour Framework. It goes without saying that trade is key to our economic success, but it’s also a tool for good. These updated frameworks will be used to guide our future trade negotiations and will ensure that this Government continues to negotiate agreements that don’t just bring new opportunities for New Zealand exporters, but also improve standards of living, protect labour rights, and take action on climate change. This Labour Government’s record on trade is historic. Since 2017, we have secured seven new or upgraded free-trade agreements, and each and every one of those free-trade agreements has delivered progress for our exporters, for our economy, and for our Trade for All agenda, and we fully intend to continue that momentum.

Dan Rosewarne: How does the recent UK free-trade agreement (FTA) reflect our Trade for All agenda?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Well, the UK free-trade agreement is our very first trade agreement negotiated and signed under our Trade for All agenda. It is a gold standard—in fact, I say a platinum standard—agreement. The UK FTA delivers unprecedented access to the sixth largest economy in the world, saves Kiwi businesses $37 million in tariff reductions immediately, and sees 99.5 percent of our exports enter the UK market duty free. At the same time, the agreement also sets ambitious commitments on sustainable and inclusive trade, such as tackling harmful environmental subsidies. The UK FTA shows that market access and opportunities and Trade for All principles are not mutually exclusive; it is possible to have the best of both worlds, and with the UK FTA we indeed have.

Dan Rosewarne: How is our Trade for All agenda reflected in our recently signed EU FTA?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: It keeps getting better. The EU FTA was also negotiated and signed under this Government’s Trade for All agenda, and it delivers huge opportunities in a market of 450 million people. In fact, we expect that the EU FTA will increase our exports to the EU by up to $1.8 billion per year by 2035 and, of course, the agreement also includes ambitious outcomes in areas like climate action, subsidy reform, Māori trade, and gender equality. The Trade for All agenda is about maximising opportunities for all New Zealanders, and the EU FTA will boost our economy, cut costs to exporters, create new opportunities for small and medium businesses, and protect jobs for Kiwi families.

Question No. 7—Housing

7. to the Minister of Housing: Was Inland Revenue right that additional taxes on rental housing “will put upward pressure on rents and may reduce the supply of new housing developments in the longer-term”, and how much have average rents increased since the Government’s interest deductibility changes were introduced?

On behalf of the Minister of Housing, the evidence does not suggest that the interest deductibility changes are the main causes of rent increases. A recently released report from the Treasury, the Reserve Bank, and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development found that wage increases and the relative supply and demand of homes were instead the main driver of rents. Since the introduction of the new interest deductibility rules in October 2021, nationwide rent for new tenancies has increased by 5.9 percent to the end of July 2023. This is in line with the longer-term average and below the rate of general inflation. We know the way you get out of a housing crisis is by building more houses, not selling them like the previous Government used to do. That’s why we’ve ensured new builds are exempted from the interest limitation rules for a period of 20 years. Consents remain above pre-COVID levels and completions of new builds are at record highs.

Chris Bishop: How does she square those comments with the research conducted by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, which actually asks landlords why they are increasing rents, for which the answer is: because of changes to interest deductibility legislation, introduced by her Government?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That’s not the information we’ve got from landlords—

Chris Bishop: It’s your own document.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, the member is quoting something that is out of line with what we’ve received and we don’t agree with those comments.

Chris Bishop: Has she seen the comments of noted tax expert Dr Deborah Russell, who said that removing the ability for landlords to deduct interest costs is “a bad idea” and “simply won’t work”, and does she agree?

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Over 10 years ago, mate.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yet another stupid question from that member. We all say things and we do things differently than 10 years ago. I mean, that member was a lobbyist for the tobacco companies 10 years ago, and now he’s an honourable member.

Chris Bishop: Has she heard the comments from noted tax expert Dr Deborah Russell—that her comments were 10 years ago when she said removing ability for landlords deduct interests costs “would be an arbitrary rule designed to achieve a non-tax purpose”, and what responsibility does she take for rents being up $175 a week in the last six years?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: These questions are getting stupider and stupider. The member is talking about what someone said 10 years ago. We have a member here who totally supports what the Government are saying. He should look at what he was doing 10 years ago, which was advocating for the dirty, rotten tobacco companies.

Chris Bishop: What is incorrect about the remarks of noted tax expert Dr Deborah Russell that removing the ability for landlords to deduct interest costs were an arbitrary rule designed to achieve a non-tax purpose, were a bad idea, and simply won’t work; what is incorrect about the analysis?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The member can’t get it through his thick head that the Minister was making those comments in a previous life—10 years ago. So get it through your thick head that this member here totally supports the Government, and we support Minister Russell, 100 percent.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. The question of time has nothing to do with the correctness of the answer. He could at least address the question, which was: what was incorrect about the quotation? Being old doesn’t make it incorrect.

SPEAKER: I’ll have to have a bit of think about that one, because there was a lot that the Hon Willie Jackson said. I’m just trying to think whether it actually addressed the question or not. One of the problems, of course, was it was quite loud in here—been many rulings about that, whether the Speaker can hear the question. I don’t think it probably was, and I’ll give the member the benefit of doubt. Mr Jackson, unhelpful to describe any question by a member in that way. I encourage the Minister to think carefully about the question. I’ll ask Chris Bishop to ask it again. Answer the question, not comment on the quality of it.

Chris Bishop: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The question was—paraphrasing slightly—what was incorrect, or what is incorrect about the analysis of noted tax expert Dr Deborah Russell in her long blog post that explains that removing the ability for landlords to deduct interest costs is a bad idea, won’t work, and is an arbitrary rule designed to achieve a non-tax purpose?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: In 2013, the Minister now—who was not even a member of Parliament at the time—was probably correct, because it was a different time. It was a different environment. Since then, we’ve had to inherit a housing crisis. Times change, people change, jobs change. As I keep saying, this person here was advocating for the tobacco companies, advocating against the average New Zealander. He should hang his head in shame, but now he’s an honourable member, some say.

Hon David Parker: Can the Minister confirm that since interest deductibility was limited, rents have gone up by less than the rate of general inflation?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: One hundred percent. Rents are below the general inflation rate and, in fact, things are so much better for renters under this Government. Under the previous Government, landlords would kick our people out—Kiwis out—just at a whim. Chris Bishop’s mates—these landlords, they had no time for the average Kiwi. Now we have warm homes. We look after people. You can’t put rent up just at the drop of a hat, like Mr Luxon and his rich mates would do.

SPEAKER: That last comment was not helpful. I think I’ll get you to withdraw and apologise.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I withdraw and apologise.

Question No. 8—Justice

8. to the Minister of Justice: How is the Government delivering more support for the victims of crime?

Last week, I introduced the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill, which will, in the next phase of our work, support victims of crime. The bill addresses some important issues in the justice system, reducing the risk of child victims of sexual violence being asked about consent while in court, as well as increasing the maximum penalty for the offence of sexual connection with a child to 20 years’ imprisonment, to align with other offences. The bill also gives adult victims of sexual violence greater say over name suppression for themselves, as well as the offender. This Government is delivering on our goal to improve the experience of victims in our justice system.

Arena Williams: What other work is under way to address gaps in the justice system for victims?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Just last month, three new pilot programmes got well under way. The first will help make sure victims’ voices are heard when bail decisions are being made. The second pilot aims to improve the experience of child witnesses in sexual violence cases and provides training for support staff to work with them. The third pilot programme is focused on improving the coordination and safety planning for victims of serious crime. Victims have told us that there are some parts of the justice system that are not working for them. We have heard those concerns, and these pilots will make a real difference in this space.

Arena Williams: What financial support is now available for victims?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Since we came into Government, we have tripled the amount of funding for the Victim Assistance Scheme and doubled the amount of funding for Victim Support. Our support for the Victim Assistance Scheme means an estimated 10,000 more grants are available for victims of serious crime, including increased financial support for homicide victims’ families, counselling for victims of serious crime, and a new grant specific to victims of sexual violence. I’m proud of our strong track record for supporting victims—compared to the previous Government, which reduced funding in this area.

Arena Williams: What other work is under way to support victims of crime?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The bill introduced last week is part of the tranche of a three-year programme to transform victims’ experience in the justice system. We passed the Sexual Violence Legislation Act and established Te Aorerekura to empower communities to fight back and reduce family violence. The work is under way to make further changes to prevent litigation abuse in Family Court proceedings. These are always practical changes that will make sure victims have a meaningful role in the decisions that directly affect them and their families. As a Government, we are committed to having a justice system where victims feel safe, heard, and empowered.

Question No. 9—Energy and Resources

9. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she stand by her reported statement in relation to the carbon price doubling or tripling that “the financial consequences for families would be too harsh”; if so, does she support further measures to directly assist households to decarbonise?

On behalf of the Minister, yes and yes.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is she aware that a gas heater has lifetime emissions of over 11,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide, is more expensive to run than a heat pump, and exacerbates childhood asthma; and if so, when will Warmer Kiwi Homes be expanded to include swapping out gas heating?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I certainly accept that the particulate discharges from gas heaters—particularly if it’s not vented—can be problematic, and that a heat pump is better. And I stand by the record of this Government, which is to deliver 100,000 insulation and heating retrofits through the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does she accept Transpower’s assessment that Aotearoa needs 13 percent solar generation to achieve a 100 percent renewable electricity target; if so, what is the Government doing to get more rooftops solar on homes?

Hon DAVID PARKER: On behalf of the Minister, yes, I accept that solar is part of the future. Most solar investments are likely to be in solar farms rather than on rooftops. Rooftop installations are most cost-effectively done at the time of building of houses, which is one of the reasons why the Government programme, in respect of State house builds, is incorporating some solar on roofs of new builds.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does she support the call from The Homes We Deserve coalition of over 160 organisations, to commit to a large-scale retrofit programme over the next nine years to reduce emissions and household bills?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I have no responsibility for other parties’ or other groups’ policies.

Question No. 10—Conservation

10. to the Minister of Conservation: What recent announcements has she made regarding taking action to protect the Hauraki Gulf?

Last week, the Prime Minister announced that we are taking a major step towards protecting the Hauraki Gulf for future generations through the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill. This beautiful blue backyard is where Kiwis in the region have some of their best experiences. It’s also essential and a traditional source of food, and a vital part of our economy for the tourism, transport, and seafood sectors, with a recent assessment putting the economic value of the gulf at $100 billion. However, we know that the gulf is under stress, and action is needed now. The Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill will see the implementation of 19 new protection areas that have been designed to represent and protect a range of crucial ecosystems in the region. They will be located across the inner and outer gulf, protecting a range of rare, ecologically important, and representative habitats and species. Through this action, we will nearly triple the area of Auckland’s maritime area that is under the protection from just over 6 percent to about 18 percent.

Angie Warren-Clark: How will these new marine protection areas work?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: As I have noted, the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana must be protected for the enjoyment of future generations. The way we will do this is threefold. Firstly, we are extending the country’s first marine reserve, Cape Rodney-Ōkākari Point Marine Reserve—or Goat Island—and Whanganui-A-Hei (Cathedral Cove) Marine Reserve on the Coromandel Peninsula. Secondly, we will create 12 new high-protection areas to protect and restore marine ecosystems, while allowing for customary practices of tangata whenua. And, thirdly, the bill will allow for five new sea-floor protection areas to preserve sensitive sea-floor habitats by prohibiting bottom-contact fishing methods and other activities which harm the sea-floor.

Angie Warren-Clark: How are these marine protection areas developed?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: The best way to protect the special marine ecosystem is to find conservation solutions which work for different people, and that’s exactly what this action to revitalise the gulf does. The bill announced this week follows years of careful work and extensive consultation to strike a good balance. An important catalyst for change was the innovative endeavour the Sea Change - Tai Timu Tai Pari marine spatial plan. It was developed by a group that comprised tangata whenua, fishers, farmers, and environmental groups. Since then, the Department of Conservation and Fisheries New Zealand led several rounds of consultation with tangata whenua and key groups. During our final public consultation around the end of 2022, we had significant contributions from the community, with more than 7,500 submissions on the marine protection proposals.

Angie Warren-Clark: What impact are the new marine protection areas anticipated to have?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: These new marine protection areas will protect at-risk ecologically valuable and representative habitats and ecosystems in the gulf to support their recovery. They will also increase our understanding of marine ecosystems within the gulf and the pressures on them, and support holistic management. Just two examples of protection that these areas will provide include one of the last and possibly best remnant seagrass meadows found in the Hauraki Gulf, as well as a more comprehensive protection for rock lobster, which are considered functionally extinct in the gulf, through the marine reserve extensions. This week is Conservation Week and the theme is relevant to this kaupapa: take action for nature. So as the Government moves to do just that in the Hauraki Gulf, I also take this opportunity to encourage everyone to get involved: Conservation Week is to improve the environment and their own wellbeing.

Question No. 11—Health

11. to the Minister of Health: How many of the 24 initiatives in the 2023 winter plan have resulted in patients actually being treated, and what evidence, if any, does she have that the plan has reduced pressure on hospital emergency departments (EDs)?

This year, a comprehensive winter plan was put in place to ease pressure on the whole health system. As that member is aware, the plan included new pathways to treatment as well as actions across the system to better manage acute demand, including expediting needs assessments, vaccination, data, and staffing projects. Of the interventions that are new treatment pathways, I am advised there have been 50,000 free consultations in pharmacies with a minor health condition scheme; over 20,000 calls diverted to the clinical telehealth service since December 2022 by eligible practices for overflow and after-hours support, with more eligible services signing up. The clinical telehealth service pilot for ambulance staff has seen over 1,200 patients nationally treated in the community, and avoiding a trip to the emergency departments since the start of the year. In answer to the second part of the question, I am certain the plan reduced pressure on emergency rooms—had we not vaccinated over 1.2 million people for influenza, over 600,000 people for COVID, or over 340,000 children for their routine immunisations. Although we are almost through the winter, it is not finished yet and a full and comprehensive evaluation of the winter plan and its impact on the system will happen once winter is over.

Dr Shane Reti: Point of order. I didn’t ask how many people had participated in any number of initiatives. My primary question on notice asked, “How many of the 24 initiatives in the 2023 winter plan have resulted in patients actually being [seen]”? “How many of the 24 initiatives” was my question.

SPEAKER: Yeah. I’m not an expert in this area, but I did hear three distinct areas. Maybe the—[Interruption] Who was that? I’m trying to do a ruling. It’s really unhelpful, people interrupting. Maybe the Minister can help me in making that discern, but I thought I heard you mention three of those initiatives. Am I right or—

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Mr, Speaker, yes. I did name three, but the answer would be 11 of the initiatives treat people.

Dr Shane Reti: What specific actions is she taking to ensure that Oamaru ED will not have to close for a fourth time this year?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Those contingencies are managed by local clinicians, and it is important that those plans are in place to make sure that patients are looked after when staffing levels are low. Te Whatu Ora has taken responsibility for increasing the resourcing that was previously provided to the district health board to make it more able to face these challenges, and works in the longer term with that centre—and the trust that owns it—in order to address the staffing challenges it faces.

Dr Shane Reti: How many people have been diverted to other hospitals because Oamaru ED has been closed?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: That’s a very precise question. That does occasionally happen, and it is not ideal but it is important that when that decision is necessary, clinicians are supported to make it to take care of people.

Dr Shane Reti: Have any patients been diverted to other hospitals because Oamaru ED has been closed?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I am aware that patients were referred both in advance of the change and during the time when staffing levels were low.

Dr Shane Reti: Why is she unable to report ED wait time data until two weeks after the election, given it has been previously reported monthly for decades?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: It is not me who reports ED wait time data. Te Whatu Ora has a responsibility to do that. They have written a very long report on the appropriate process for doing so, and if that member wants accurate information, the processes that are outlined in that report need to be followed.

Question No. 12—Education

12. to the Minister of Education: Does she agree that the Relationships and Sexuality Education: A Guide for Teachers, Leaders, and Boards of Trustees resource produced by the Ministry of Education “must” be included in teaching programmes for years 1 to 8 children, and that “the school does not need to seek parents’ or caregivers’ permission for ākonga to participate in the programme”?

Within the New Zealand curriculum, health and physical education, which includes relationships and sexuality, must be taught. However, the document the member refers to is a guide and not a requirement. Under the Education and Training Act 2020, schools have a legal obligation to consult with their communities at least every two years about their local health curriculum. Under the Act, parents and caregivers still have the right to withdraw their child from relationships and sexuality education by written requests to the school.

Chris Baillie: What should a parent do if they don’t want teachers talking to their children about gender identity and gender diversity, given that the guidelines suggest the curriculum programmes could be integrated into English, science, technology, maths and statistics, languages, and social sciences?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I have just said in my primary answer that they should write to the school. But I will actually read here what it does say about the suggested learning intentions—that in that guide it says it can be taught across the curriculum. In English, for example, it could explore and critique the representation of gender roles and relationships in text. Therefore, it could look at gender stereotyping—for example, women going to the supermarket all the time.

Chris Baillie: Does the Minister think that parents should have greater involvement over the delivery of relationship and sexuality education in schools?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I will refer to my primary answer. Can I read the part from those guidelines where it says schools, teachers, and parents or caregivers have some particular rights and responsibilities around requests for children to be withdrawn from aspects of the sexuality programme responding to children’s questions on sensitive issues. Firstly, the way that this happens is that schools must legally consult with their school community on what they are planning to teach in their local health curriculum. The school board of trustees then decides what the curriculum will be, taking into consideration the consultation from the community and the professional guidelines provided by the ministry. The school does not have to seek further consultation or permission from parents at this stage. However, if parents wish to remove their child from this part of the curriculum, they can do so.

Chris Baillie: Can the Minister explain why enabling year 1 to 8 children to “interrogate the ongoing effects of colonisation” is relevant to relationship and sexuality education for five- to 12-year-olds?

Hon JAN TINETTI: The guidelines the member is referring to have been developed by experts. What I will say is that, as a teacher, I know, from being a teacher, that when you put learning into the context of the learner, the educational outcomes are more powerful.

Chris Baillie: What teacher professional development has been provided to teach relationships and sexuality education, or can anyone do it?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Professional learning and development is part of the contract system. When a school decides that that is what they want to focus on, they will make those applications to the Ministry of Education or they will contract those private providers themselves. But it’s up to the school to determine where their strengths lie and also where their weaknesses lie, and what professional development they need as a school.