Oral Questions

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to oral question No. 3 on 21 June 2022.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: In response to Ms Ngarewa-Packer’s first supplementary to oral question No. 3 on 21 June 2022, I stated that the Children’s Commissioner, between 2015 and 2019, had had 78 complaints that were put through them that they then put on to the Ombudsman because the Ombudsman has had the lead role with regards to addressing complaints. The Office of the Children’s Commissioner has confirmed to the Ministry of Social Development that the number of complaints in my answer is correct. However, following correspondence between my office and a stakeholder, I have been made aware that the time period I referred to was not correct. The time period I referred to should have been 1 January 2015 to 28 February 2022. My office advised me of this yesterday, and I’m taking this first possible opportunity to correct the record.

Question No. 1—Social Development and Employment

1. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent reports has she seen on the effects of changes to the welfare system since 2017?

Last week, Max Rashbrooke reported in The Spinoff what progress has been made by this Government’s successive investments to lift incomes, pull children out of poverty, and help those in need through changes to the welfare system. He concludes in his article that income poverty has decreased overall and that 115,000 people have been brought out of poverty since we came into office. This is hard—sometimes technical—work, but we are making progress. We’re not shying away from putting families first and focusing on what matters most to New Zealanders as we continue to deliver meaningful change in children’s and families’ lives through the welfare system. We remain focused on easing the pressure for our most vulnerable families.

Dr Emily Henderson: What progress has been made for reducing hardship through changes to the welfare system?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Mr Rashbrooke identified progress on three key measures, including how many children are in families that find it hard to afford the basics, whether living standards are rising over time, and how many families report being unable to afford life’s basic necessities. Mr Rashbrooke concludes progress has been made on these three measures and we are heading in the right direction. Today, 13 percent of children say food runs out sometimes or often, compared with 20 percent in 2019. On 2023 Government figures, 356,000 beneficiaries are estimated to be better off by, on average, $118 per week, which increases to $142 per week during the 2023 winter period. A further 109,000 beneficiaries with children are estimated to be better off by, on average, $190 per week, which increases to $222 per week during the 2023 winter period.

Dr Emily Henderson: How do those who receive this support feel about their current situation following these changes to the welfare system?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Max Rashbrooke spoke to a range of people. One man was Paul Clutterbuck, a 50-year-old Wellingtonian living with multiple rare health conditions. [Interruption] We take this person’s situation very seriously, unlike the other side of the House. Mr Clutterbuck expressed his support for the changes this Government has made, stating, “I’m grateful for the improvement since Labour came into office.” He noted that until the recent benefit increases made by this Government his disposable income had “stagnated terribly” for several decades.

Dr Emily Henderson: And what further changes is the Government making this year to improve outcomes for those most in need?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: From 1 April this year, we’re rolling out further support to 1.4 million New Zealanders, including families, seniors, caregivers, students, workers, and those on main benefits. Examples include 646,000 children who will be better off through increases to Working for Families tax credits. In Budget 2023, we continued with the support, including 20 hours free early childhood education for two-year-olds, scrapping $5 prescription fees, and free public transport for under-13s, with half-price for under-25s. While these measures won’t solve everything, they will help to ease some of the pressure. And right now, every bit counts when making ends meet.

Question No. 2—Corrections

2. to the Minister of Corrections: What actions, if any, is he taking in response to a recent report from the independent Office of the Inspectorate which found that 29 percent of all prisoners experienced solitary confinement over a 12month period, seriously impacting on the wellbeing of people in prison and their families?

It’s always my expectation that Corrections manages prisoners safely and humanely. Corrections’ front-line staff work with some of the most challenging people in society, so isolation is a necessary tool in prisons to ensure both staff and prisoners’ safety, especially as this investigation was conducted from October 2020 to September 2021, during the COVID pandemic. Staff have obligations to public safety, the safety of their colleagues, and the welfare of prisoners. That can, at times, lead to choices with very limited options. However, I absolutely agree with the report that being isolated for longer periods of time can have a negative impact on the prisoner and their whānau, and more needs to be done to minimise that. Corrections has accepted all seven of the report’s recommendations, and I’ll work to ensure that both the short- and long-term responses to the recommendations progress as quickly as possible.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he believe that it is acceptable that a significant number of prisoners—disproportionately Māori—experience solitary confinement for months on end, and, in some cases, in excess of a year?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I’m always concerned about the over-representation of Māori in prison and related statistics, which is why I launched a new strategy for Corrections in 2019 with a significant focus on this issue, but this is something that requires long-term change across the justice system, and I’ve made my expectations clear that Corrections manages all prisoners safely and humanely.

Rawiri Waititi: So what is he doing about the fact that these findings confirmed that Aotearoa is in breach of international law—the Nelson Mandela Rules, which prohibit solitary confinement in excess of 15 days—and is Hōkai Rangi working?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes.

Rawiri Waititi: How can he expect that prisoners will receive the necessary rehabilitation and recovery support in order to reduce reoffending and risk to communities if they are stuck in solitary confinement, which has been proven to cause depression, anxiety, panic attacks, anger, irritability, perceptual distortion, and paranoia?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: There’s quite a lot in there, so I’ll address one part of it. We are making progress. In terms of the Māori resentencing rate, that has decreased by 6.4 percentage points from 2014 and 2015 to 2021 and 2022, and the Māori re-imprisonment rate has dropped nearly 5 percent in the same period, while all the while, the overall Māori imprisonment rate has declined.

Rawiri Waititi: When will he be able to guarantee to this House that staff shortages in Corrections are not contributing to human rights offences in prisons, such as extended solitary confinement and refusing whānau visitation, or does he think staff shortages are an acceptable excuse to breach basic human rights?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No, but I will say that in terms of visitation, the visitation rates are similar to when the Māori Party was in Government, and they had an Associate Minister of Corrections, but also in terms of visitation, there have been over 3,000 audiovisual link visits, which, in many cases, prisoners and their whānau prefer.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. Sorry, I don’t think that the question has been answered. It was quite specific and asked when. We did get a good spiel about what the Minister has attempted to do, but we didn’t get an answer to the “when”.

SPEAKER: I ask the member to go back to the Hansard, and I think the first word answered the question.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Yes, particularly the decision to initiate a market study into personal banking services to ensure the market is working well for New Zealanders. The Commerce Commission study will be completed by the end of August 2024, with a preliminary issues paper expected in August this year. It’ll examine barriers to new competitors, the introduction of innovative products and services, and consumers’ ability to switch between banks.

Christopher Luxon: Does he stand by his admission last year that “the Government needs to do more to tackle gang crime”, and has he failed when gangs are taking over State highways and shutting down schools?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes, I absolutely do, and I am very proud of the work that the Government did to bring a bill to the House to give police more powers to crack down on gangs. That bill, that new law, was used for the first time in Ōpōtiki, and the gangs are facing the consequences of their actions because of the law change that we have put through Parliament.

Christopher Luxon: When he said “gang convoys suck for everybody [who’s] disrupted by them”, why won’t he give police dispersal powers so they can actually stop gangs from taking over a State highway in the middle of the day and blocking law-abiding Kiwis from going about their business?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated, we went through the process of identifying what the best tools were that were going to help the police whilst also protecting the safety of police as well, and the law change that we put through the Parliament is giving them extra tools in their fight against gang crime.

Christopher Luxon: Why does this Government continue to allow gangs to shut down a State highway for two hours when he said last year, “gang activities have been totally unacceptable and our communities deserve [so much] better”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I absolutely stand by my statement that that type of activity is totally unacceptable, and we are backing the police to do the difficult job that they have ahead of them.

Christopher Luxon: Well then, why, despite all his talk on gangs, is violent crime up 33 percent, gang membership up 66 percent, and Kiwis don’t feel safe in their own homes, their own businesses, their own communities?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I note, when the member talks about violent crime and Kiwis not feeling safe in their own homes, one of the biggest drivers of the increase in violent crime has been increased reporting of domestic and family violence, something the National Party pretends doesn’t exist.

Christopher Luxon: What responsibility does he take for the record number of Kiwis turning to foodbanks because his Government increased spending by 80 percent, driving inflation and interest rates up through the roof, and now has driven the economy into recession?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The question asked simply is not credible. In fact, New Zealand’s rate of inflation has been below the OECD average for much of the period in question. There is an international inflationary pandemic at the moment. New Zealand is supporting people through that, including those on the lowest incomes. I note that the members opposite think we have done too much to support people on the lowest incomes through the current cost of living crisis.

Christopher Luxon: Doesn’t he understand that his spending, which has pushed up inflation and interest rates and now driven New Zealand into recession, means that Kiwis can’t meet their debt payments, they’re lining up at foodbanks in record numbers, and they’re cancelling their kids’ activities to pay their mortgages?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I do note the member’s trying to rewrite history here, in the sense that, as the inflationary spike started, the National Party continued to argue for more and more Government spending. In fact, we can go through the time line, where they were saying we weren’t doing enough to support New Zealand through the events of COVID-19 and we needed to spend more money. Despite the fact that the warning signs of inflation were already there, the National Party at the time didn’t seem to take much notice of those and was arguing the Government should spend more.

Christopher Luxon: What does he say to Kiwis actually skipping meals because they can’t afford food prices that his inflationary policies have driven up?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I would remind them that the National Party hasn’t supported any of the measures that this Government has put in place to support those on the lowest incomes through the current cost of living crisis.

David Seymour: Whakarongo mai, kōrero te reo Māori. He Māori ahau mō ngā kaupapa hauora. [Listen up as I speak in te reo Māori. I am a Māori for health contexts.]

SPEAKER: Is that a supplementary question?

David Seymour: Yes, Mr Speaker.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn’t hear a question in that.

SPEAKER: No, neither did I—that’s why I asked. I heard a statement.

David Seymour: I’m very happy to repeat it.

SPEAKER: If you have a supplementary, please ask it.

David Seymour: He Māori ahau mō ngā kaupapa hauora? [I am a Māori for health contexts?]

SPEAKER: He Māori hoki ahau engari ehara tērā i te pātai. [I am also a Māori but that is not a question.] Are there any more supplementary questions?

Nicole McKee: Is it acceptable to him that, as a Māori woman, I could be placed higher on a surgical wait-list than someone of a different ethnicity, even if our clinical need, time spent on the wait-list, location, and deprivation levels are the same?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member misses the whole thrust of the debate that’s been had in the last 24 hours. We are talking about people who have been on a wait-list for more than two years, where there is clear evidence that if someone is Māori, if someone is a Pacific Islander, if they are from a rural community, or if they are from a low-income background, they have been languishing for longer on the wait-lists than people who don’t fit those descriptors. The fact that the health system is ensuring that those with clinical need who fit those four descriptors are not being discriminated against is surely something the member should welcome.

Karen Chhour: Is it acceptable to him that my Cambodian husband could be placed lower on a surgical wait-list than me, even if our clinical needs are the same, our time spent on the wait-list, location, deprivation level are the same; and, if not, why is ethnicity a factor on the surgical wait-list equity adjustor?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: To speak to the member’s personal circumstances, I think it’s wrong that that member will have previously been placed lower on the list than her husband. I don’t think that’s acceptable.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Is it acceptable that a New Zealander with co-morbidities, living in a rural area, will be treated differently; and is that the case under the current system?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There is clear evidence that people who are Māori, who are Pasifika, who are living in a rural community or who are from a low-income background have been disadvantaged by the health system wait-list. They have been on the wait-list for the same clinical reasons for longer than other New Zealanders who don’t fit those descriptions. That is discrimination; it’s not acceptable. The fact that the health system is working to remove that discrimination is a good thing.

Dr James McDowall: Is it acceptable to him that my five-year-old, half-Chinese daughter could be placed lower on a surgical wait-list than someone else with the same clinical need, time spent on the wait-list, location, and deprivation level due to her ethnicity; and if not, why is ethnicity a factor on the surgical wait-list—

Hon Marama Davidson: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Dr James McDowall: —equity adjustor? Thanks for letting me finish.

Hon Marama Davidson: Mr Speaker, I asked for your guidance back on 12 May 2021, and, through you, Mr Speaker—it was from David Wilson—an update to all of us from the Speaker then, who talked about a ruling of people taking care, as they express themselves, to think of the wider consequences when they do. The nature of these questions are absolutely intended to raise racist opinions amongst the New Zealand public, and I ask you, Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Damien Smith: Supplementary—

SPEAKER: No, sit down. I’m going to rule on this. That is a very serious accusation that the member has made. The first part of it I disagree with in this instance. To carry on to make an accusation, as you did, I’m contemplating sending you out. It’s a discussion that perhaps this House should have one day, but you cannot make that accusation in this House. You will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Marama Davidson: I stand, withdraw, and apologise. Point of order—

SPEAKER: No, do it properly. No, no, no. I’ll give you one more chance. You do it properly, you can stay.

Hon Marama Davidson: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, you’re going to apologise correctly.

Hon Marama Davidson: I stand, withdraw, and apologise.

SPEAKER: You can leave the Chamber.

Hon Marama Davidson: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: You will leave the Chamber.

Hon Marama Davidson withdrew from the Chamber.

Dr McDowall, can you ask your question again?

Dr JAMES McDOWALL: To the Prime Minister, is it acceptable to him that my five-year-old half-Chinese daughter could be placed lower on a surgical wait-list than someone else with the same clinical need, time spent on the wait-list, location, and deprivation level due to her ethnicity; and, if not, why is ethnicity a factor on the surgical wait-list equity adjustment?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: My answer to that question is the same as to the last one, although, I will correct that and say that, generally speaking, I have not commented on members’ family situations in answers to questions, and I was wrong to do so in the last answer and I won’t do so again.

Damien Smith: Is it acceptable to him that the migrant workers—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! I’ve had this ruling before, it’s really important that members ask—are able to scrutinise everything that the Government does. If the Government doesn’t want to be scrutinised, that’s the message you are giving right now by interrupting, interjecting while questions are being asked.

DAMIEN SMITH: Is it acceptable to him that the migrant workers, without whom the health system would collapse, could be deprioritised on surgical wait-lists because they don’t have a Māori or Pasifika ancestry, and, if not, why is ethnicity a factor on the surgical wait-list equity adjustor?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I notice the member has not yet raised anyone from rural communities or low-income backgrounds and the ACT Party don’t seem to be raising any examples in that regard. I think it is wrong that people from Māori backgrounds, from Pacific backgrounds, from rural backgrounds, from low-income backgrounds have been discriminated against in the wait-list system. I think it is correct that the health system ensures that segments of the population are not being discriminated against.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. Kia ora, thank you, e te Māngai. I refer to the House rules which prevents members conducting debates in certain ways that create disorder and lead to disorder because of racism or implied racism. It is not Māori’s fault that we die seven years earlier; it is not Māori’s fault that we live in systemic racism. This is a debate that is about systemic racism. It is not about the Government being held to account, and Te Paati Māori object to the way that it is going.

SPEAKER: This is not a debate; this is question time where members of this House get to ask questions of the Government and the Government has the opportunity to answer them, which it has been doing.

David Seymour: Ki a koe, he Māori ahau mō ngā kaupapa hauora? [To you, in regards to health issues, am I considered as Māori?]

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There was no translation.

SPEAKER: Well, ki taku nei mōhio, [Well, as far as I know,] this is my interpretation of what the member is saying. The members can listen to the—but I’m going to preside over as if the member has said to you, “Do you consider me to be a Māori?”

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member can make his own judgment about what ethnicity he is.

Question No. 4—Health

4. to the Minister of Health: What recent announcement has the Government made about increasing the number of first-year medical school places?

Last week, I was proud to announce that funding for medical school enrolments will be increased by 50 places, to 589 places annually beginning in 2024. Training more medical students will help us grow our medical workforce over time, ensuring we can provide sustainable public healthcare.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: Why has the Government increased the number of first-year medical school places?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: To build a sustainable workforce, we must grow and invest in our domestic doctors, especially where there is global competition for internationally trained doctors. We are growing the number of doctors trained in New Zealand to help meet the needs of our population and to ensure health equity across the country. We want to train and retain as many local health workers as possible.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How will this change support the Government’s priorities in health?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The funding for medical school enrolments is one of a range of investments the Government is making in the health workforce to ensure all New Zealanders can access the medical care they need, when and where they need it. Workforce is a key priority for the Government. We are working on long-term plans to ensure a sustainable, representative, and responsive workforce to meet the future needs of New Zealanders no matter who they are and where they live.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What feedback has been received about this announcement?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: This announcement has been received very positively by the sector. Professor Tim Wilkinson, Otago Medical School’s Acting Dean, said it was “a significant investment”, and Professor Warwick Bagg, from the University of Auckland’s Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, said that “the funding for these extra places is a great start to strengthening our domestic workforce and responding to the health needs of all New Zealanders.”

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: What was the change in GDP per capita in each of the past two quarters, and does he agree that, by that measure, the New Zealand economy is going backwards?

In the March 2023 quarter, real GDP per capita was down 0.7 percent from December, and in the December quarter it was down 1.1 percent from September. However, on an annual basis, Stats New Zealand reported that real GDP per capita in the March quarter was up 2.4 percent from a year ago following annual growth of 2.4 percent in the December quarter. In answer to the second part of the question, this is a tough time for many New Zealand households. New Zealand’s real GDP per capita is rising on an annual basis—indeed, on both quarterly and yearly measures—and real GDP per capita has risen faster under this Government compared to the previous Government, but we will continue to support New Zealanders through this challenging time.

Nicola Willis: Was Labour Party finance spokesperson Grant Robertson correct in 2017 when he said: “we got the last quarter’s growth, and once again GDP per capita fell—two quarters in a row of GDP per capita falling. And so per person … New Zealand is going backwards”, and why is it different this time?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That handsome, young, somewhat naïve member at the time—no, I recall that line of questioning very accurately and the response I got referred me to “yearly” rather than “quarterly” results, because quarterly results show considerable volatility. Nowadays, I bear that in mind.

Nicola Willis: Well, was Labour Party finance spokesperson Grant Robertson correct in 2016 when he said that flat GDP per capita was “the story of a complacent, out-of-touch Government”; and, if so, what does it say about his Government, which just oversaw per capita GDP declining for two quarters in a row?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Look, I can help the member out—if this is going to be the line of supplementary questions—in that the answer to: “Was Grant Robertson the Labour finance spokesperson correct?” is generally “Yes”, and if there are further questions in that line, that will be the answer. In terms of the second part of the member’s question, about that particular Government at that particular time being complacent, absolutely that Government was complacent at that time. They were failing to invest properly in the skills of New Zealanders, they were failing to invest properly in research and development, they’d become complacent about international trade agreements, and all the many things that make up productivity. So, absolutely, that man was correct.

Nicola Willis: Does he agree with the reflection Grant Robertson shared in Parliament in 2016 that “We only grow our share of the economic cake when GDP per capita grows, otherwise we are running hard to stay still.”; and isn’t it the case that with his complacent, anti-growth policies, Kiwis are running harder to stay still?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is completely incorrect. This was a Budget that increased investment in our science and innovation sector. This was a Budget that increased investment in skills. This is a Government that has signed on to important free-trade agreements with the European Union, with the United Kingdom. This is a Government that continues to support businesses and to support individuals in our community to succeed and thrive.

Nicola Willis: Is he aware that New Zealand’s decline in GDP per capita in the past six months was worse than in a range of European countries, including those struggling with major energy challenges following the Ukraine conflict, including Germany and the United Kingdom—why is it so much worse in New Zealand?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This is an occasion to be able to refer to annualised figures, because different countries are at different points in their recovery from the COVID pandemic. It is right to say that New Zealand’s annual GDP is up 2.9 percent, higher than the long-run average; compared to the same quarter a year ago, it is 2.2 percent larger. If we compare to those other countries on that basis, Australia is at 2.3 percent, Canada joins us at 2.2 percent, and the countries in the European area that she refers to have 1.3 percent. It is true that countries are at different stages, but when we do compare it annually, the results are a little different to what the member says.

Nicola Willis: Is he aware that New Zealand’s 1.8 percent decline in GDP per capita in the past two quarters is comparable to the decline that occurred in New Zealand during the absolute peak of the global financial crisis, and does he take responsibility for delivering an economy with record inflation, rising interest rates, a record current account deficit, and declining per capita GDP?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I take responsibility for is an economy that is 6 percent larger than it was before COVID, has unemployment at 3.4 percent, and has debt at a level lower than most of the countries that we compare ourselves to. As the Prime Minister indicated in an earlier question, New Zealand’s inflation rate has sat around the bottom third of the OECD over the last few years. This is a global inflation process. Many New Zealand households are doing it tough during this period. That’s why I’m proud that the Government has supported those households, unlike the member’s party.

David Seymour: Does he believe it’s sustainable for GDP to be supported by a $33 billion a year current account deficit, or does he admit he’s putting the economy on after-pay: borrow now, pay next generation?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: New Zealand’s current account deficit is a longstanding challenge. I do note in the latest statistics, it is starting to come down and it is forecast to continue in that direction.

David Seymour: How can he say with a straight face that the current account deficit is a longstanding challenge when the last three quarters under his economic management have been the worst current account deficits since records began under Sir Roger Douglas in 1988?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I point the member to a couple of factors. Firstly, we have faced an extraordinary challenge on the supply side of the New Zealand economy which has contributed to that, including also higher interest rates globally in addition to the hangover from COVID. Secondly, if the member wants to make those kinds of comparisons, he should look at New Zealand’s international investment position, because that was the concern in the last times that we have seen the current account deficit rise in the way that it has in recent years. Actually, the advice that I’ve had is that since 2009, New Zealand’s international investment position has been sufficiently strong to in fact counter the impacts of the current account deficit widening.

David Seymour: How can he look Kiwis in the eye and blame the current economic performance on the floods, the cyclone, COVID, Vladimir Putin, or anyone else that comes to mind when Auckland University economics professor Robert McCulloch recently said that this was blatantly untrue and that he “doesn’t know what planet Grant Robertson is on.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s the same planet that Sharon Zollner, the chief economist for ANZ is inhabiting, because she said the same thing—that, actually, the quarter’s numbers would have been positive if it weren’t for the weather events.

Nicola Willis: Why does that finance Minister persist in taking credit for positive economic indicators yet refuse all responsibility for every negative indicator, and is it in fact the case that when measured by the cost of living, per capita GDP, and interest rates, the standard of living for individual New Zealanders is declining on his watch?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I stand proudly by the record of this Government, for taking New Zealand through the greatest economic shock since World War II in a way that has left us at the end with unemployment at 3.4 percent, with our economy 6 percent larger, with our level of debt at a level that other countries would be proud to have. There have been many decisions to have made over the last few years. None of them were costless. This was a challenge that every county had to face, and when we compare ourselves against those countries, I believe we can be proud of our record.

Question No. 6—Forestry

6. to the Minister of Forestry: What recent forestry announcement has the Government made regarding the New Zealand emissions trading scheme?

This Government acknowledges the importance that the forestry sector plays in our economy, worth approximately $6 billion annually and provides over 40,000 jobs to this country. Yesterday, alongside the Minister for Climate Change, James Shaw—we both announced that public consultation opens for the redesigning of the permanent forest category.

Hon Phil Twyford: What is the importance of this announcement?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Last year, the Government consulted on proposals to restrict permanent exotic forests in the New Zealand emissions trading scheme (ETS) in response to concerns about the impacts on the environment and rural communities from these forests. The proposals generated wide interest prompting the Government to look further into the permanent forest category. This announcement ensures that we work alongside our valued communities, iwi Māori, local government, and the forestry sector to redesign the permanent forestry category. This announcement complements the recently announced changes to the National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry that will give locals and communities more control over deciding which land can be used for plantation and carbon forests. The proposals being consulted on consider the overall incentives driving afforestation and aim to help ensure the right types of forests are in the right locations and for the right reasons.

Hon Phil Twyford: How does this announcement fit into the wider ETS announcement?

Hon PEENI HENARE: We need to act now to tackle climate change and we need to use every single tool available to us. The NZ ETS is our main tool for meeting our domestic and international climate change obligations. There needs to be a strong role for forestry in our climate change strategy and we need to make sure that people also pollute less forests, store carbon, helping to address climate change by reducing Aotearoa New Zealand’s net greenhouse emissions.

Hon Phil Twyford: What is being proposed to guide the redesign of the permanent category?

Hon PEENI HENARE: The three key design choices that guide the redesign of the permanent forest category are (1) what forests should be allowed in the permanent forest category, (2) how a transition forest should be managed to best ensure a successful transition, and (3) what rules will best maximise the benefits of permanent forests in that category. The consultation is an opportunity for New Zealanders to boost the benefits of permanent forests for the climate, environment, and landowners, while also minimising the risk of these forests in the same areas. I encourage all involved in the forestry sector and communities around the country to have their say on this very important matter.

Question No. 7—Health

7. to the Minister of Health: How much weighting will be given to the ethnicity component of the equity adjuster for surgical wait-lists, and what other parts of the health system, if any, has she looked at applying the adjuster to?

To the first part of the question, the most influential factor in how a patient is scheduled is how severe their condition is as determined by their doctor. For a clinically high-priority procedure, the other variables will have almost no weight in the algorithm and, therefore, would not influence a person’s wait time. The second most influential factor is the number of days the patient has already been waiting. After that, the equity adjuster seeks to stop some groups from languishing on the long tail of the wait-list. Ethnicity, deprivation, and being from a rural area are the other factors taken into account. As I have already said to that member, including in written questions, the weightings are dynamic, so a specific weighting for ethnicity cannot be given. The weighting of elements varies between clinical specialities to make sure that clinical priority remains the primary element. To the second part of the question, no, I have not looked at applying the equity adjuster to other parts of the health system, beyond planned care. I remind the member that this initiative was developed by northern region clinicians and managers.

Dr Shane Reti: Who is correct: the Prime Minister this morning suggesting that the equity adjuster is just for Auckland and Northland, or the Minister, who stated in written answers that there would be a national roll-out?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The Prime Minister has asked me to look at if the equity adjuster is working as intended, and I will do that before any national roll-out.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was not in any way addressing the question Dr Reti asked.

SPEAKER: I’ll ask Dr Reti to ask the question again. I think it’s a close call, but—

Dr Shane Reti: Who is correct: the Prime Minister this morning suggesting that the equity adjuster is just for Auckland and Northland, or the Minister, who stated in written answers that there would be a national roll-out?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The equity adjuster is in use in two hospitals in the northern region. The Prime Minister has asked me to look at if it is being used in the way intended, and there are no further plans for a national roll-out until I am assured of that.

Dr Shane Reti: Which two hospitals?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Auckland City Hospital, and I am advised the other one is Middlemore.

Dr Shane Reti: Is the Health New Zealand business support manager correct when he wrote to clinicians that priority on the surgical wait-list will be 200 days for Māori and 250 days for nonMāori; if not, why not?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: That statement doesn’t really make sense, and I’d need additional context to be able to help interpret it.

Dr Shane Reti: Did she say that the weighting adjuster is dynamic and will change day by day?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: That’s right, because, obviously, if you have waited for longer, it is more important that you get your procedure.

Dr Shane Reti: When does she intend to roll out the equity adjuster for first specialist appointments, as indicated in her reply to written question No. 14489, or has this now been delayed as a result of the Prime Minister’s request that she assure him that the equity adjuster is not replacing one form of discrimination with another?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: As I have said, the Prime Minister has asked me to check that the equity adjuster is working in the way it’s intended, and that’s what I’ll do.

Question No. 8—Police

8. to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement that “It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer with a Government on track to deliver 1,800 extra police”; if so, why, when gangs have recruited close to twice as many members in the nearly six years it took to recruit those extra police?

To the first part of the member’s question, yes, in the context it was given. The alternative would be to not have 1,800 additional police. To the second part of the question, I’ve always been clear about the challenges that both gangs and organised criminal groups present in our communities, but it is exactly the reason why this Government has enacted legislation to crack down on gangs, which, in the past week in Ōpōtiki, saw 26 vehicles seized, four firearms seized, 11 offensive weapons seized, and nine gang members arrested—all of this under new gang conflict warrants that did not exist before April.

Nicole McKee: Does she think that New Zealanders feel safer when there is an average of two gang-related firearm offences every day this year to mid-May, and does she think that they will feel safer with the implementation of the firearms registry, knowing that gang members won’t be using it?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I would never be so bold as to speak on behalf of all New Zealanders, but I will say that this Government is cracking down on organised crime in three main ways. The first main way is through legislation, through the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill, through introducing a firearms prohibition orders ability to put those most dangerous individuals away from weapons, and also introducing new legislation around those driving and fleeing. By introducing a firearms registry, which will go live at the end of this month, it will be able to map, for the first time, where all firearms are in New Zealand. I believe that this is a good way to find out where the guns are and make sure they are out of the hands of those organised criminal groups who are a danger to our community.

Nicole McKee: Does she think that New Zealanders feel safer when youth gang membership is up 700 percent over five years to April 2023, and youth gang members have, on average, 26 offences under their belt by the time they turn 18 years old?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I have been clear that the level of youth offending occurring in New Zealand right now is completely unacceptable, but it is for that very reason that this Government has introduced and rolled out further programmes like “circuit breaker” and Kotahi te Whakaaro. These programmes show that 72 percent of young people going through those programmes do not go on to offend. I call that success.

Nicole McKee: Does she think New Zealanders feel safer when the overwhelming gang presence in Ōpōtiki recently resulted in schools shutting down for the week?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I have zero tolerance for the harm and intimidation caused by gangs in our community. The operation in Ōpōtiki, where police used new powers under the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Act meant that those communities were safe. I was pleased to see that there was not any harm done to individual people, and that is a result of those front-line police officers doing their job well and using the new powers that they had access to.

Nicole McKee: Did the Mongrel Mob pay for a traffic management plan when it shut down the streets in Ōpōtiki, and if not, why not?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: No.

Question No. 9—Workplace Relations and Safety

9. to the Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What recent announcement has she made about more financial support for parents?

Our Government has a proud track record of supporting parents and families. Since we took office, we have extended paid parental leave from 18 to 26 weeks, made GP visits free for children aged 13 and under, extended 20 hours’ free early childhood education to two-year-olds as well, and scrapped prescription fees. I was proud to build on that track record yesterday when I announced that the Government will be putting an extra $51 per week into the pockets of new parents. That’s an additional $1,327 for those taking the full 26 weeks of parental leave, and just another example of our commitment to supporting parents and families.

Camilla Belich: How will this benefit parents and families?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: We know it’s tough for families right now, but the Chris Hipkins Government is committed to supporting Kiwi families to have a bit more in their pocket and ease some of the pressures that they’re facing. These changes will raise the parental leave payment by 7.7 percent to reflect the rise in average wage. Eligible parents will see an increase in the parental leave payment from $661.12 per week to $712.17 per week before tax. The minimum rate for self-employed parents will also increase to $227 per week, which is equal to 10 hours of the minimum wage for an adult worker.

Camilla Belich: How many people will benefit from these changes?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: These increases will support a large number of families. We know, for example, that 56,200 people received paid parental leave payments in 2022. This is a Government committed to making sure that families receive the support they need with this important investment, enabling parents to focus on their newborns in their early days.

Camilla Belich: What other recent changes have been announced to support new parents?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: As part of Budget 2023, the Government announced from mid-2024 new parents will also receive a 3 percent Government contribution to their KiwiSaver while on paid parental leave provided they continue their own KiwiSaver contributions. This initiative in Budget 2023 recognises that child carers can see their nest egg worse off while on parental leave and is yet another example of this Government’s commitment to supporting parents and families.

Question No. 10—Justice

10. to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Yes, in their context.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she stand by her tweet on Sunday in response to National’s gang policy “locking people up and throwing away the key is exactly what gangs want. They want NZers to pay for their university of crime.”, and, if so, is she arguing that the gangs want longer prison sentences?

Hon DAVID PARKER: In response to the second part of that question, no.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she believe gangs want longer prison sentences so that they can spend more time at what she calls their “university of crime”?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The Minister was making the overall point that National’s approach to law and order is ill-thought-out and lacks evidence to support it.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she understand why Kiwis who hear her saying that prison is just a university of crime, and see the Government’s target of reducing the prison population regardless of the level of crime, are concluding that the Government no longer believes that serious crime should lead to serious consequences?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Of course the Government doesn’t believe that. And, indeed, the Minister of Justice has also pointed out that gang membership is already an aggravating factor in sentencing under section 9(1)(hb) of the Sentencing Act and has been applied in the likes of the King v Reihana and the King v Ormsby-Turner to increase the sentences meted out by the judiciary to gang members this year.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: So how does she reconcile her statement that making gang membership an automatic aggravating factor at sentencing infringed criminal human rights with Chris Hipkins’ earlier statement, “I have no issue with curbing the human rights of people who are engaged in criminal activity, because I think if they want to engage in criminal activity there’s a consequence of that.”, and is it the case that human rights are only an issue when National proposes something?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The two statements the member referred to are not inconsistent. I further would also agree with the Minister of Police’s comments at the time, in response to the National Party announcement, that National’s got the policy microwave set on “reheat”.

Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

11. to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent announcement has he made on market studies?

Today, at 12.30, I announced that the next market study by the Commerce Commission will be into retail banking. Banks play an important role in our economy and in every Kiwi household; New Zealanders deserve to know that they can trust their banks with their finances. Banks have consistently posted high profits over a number of years, and Kiwi consumers rightly have questions about that during tough times. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that New Zealand has a competitive banking sector, and so I have asked the Commerce Commission to undertake a market study into retail banking today.

Ingrid Leary: What will the study cover?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The Commerce Commission will have just over a year to look into any matters affecting competition for personal banking services. The study will be able to look at the full range of banking services people take up for personal or household use, but it can also narrow its spotlight and dig into certain products or areas if it needs to. It will get an understanding of competition by looking at the structure of the industry, any barriers to banks growing, or to new banks entering the sector, or any other factors affecting competition, and it will look at bank profitability.

Ingrid Leary: What is the purpose of market studies?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Market studies are a useful tool to take an in-depth look at markets where competition might not be working well. These studies take around a year to complete and look at the long-term structural issues and barriers to competition that might be driving up prices, suppressing innovation, or keeping out a bigger range of products, services, or suppliers. The Government has focused on things that matter to Kiwis in their living costs such as fuel, groceries, and building supplies—today, we add personal banking to that list. Market studies aren’t a short-term fix, but they do the heavy lifting to determine how to start to address markets that aren’t working well enough, and we are proud to do that work.

Ingrid Leary: When will the results of the study be known?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: This study will take 14 months and will report back in August 2024 with analysis and recommendations. We will have a clearer idea of the methods the Commerce Commission intends to use and preliminary issues in August this year. But we’re not waiting that long to make progress: this week, we’re also taking our next step in respect of open banking. A draft bill will be released for public consultation, and that will help make comparing and switching bank products easier for Kiwibank customers, because Kiwis should know that they’re well served by their banks and we’re doing everything we can to make sure that is the case.

Nicola Willis: Why should New Zealanders have any confidence that this market study will be any more effective than the previous market studies into fuel, groceries, and building and construction materials, or is it his position that those studies have delivered transformational change for New Zealand consumers?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, that member may be prepared to sit on her hands and do nothing; this Government will not. Later on today, that member might want to sit in the House whilst we progress the grocery reform bills that have already seen change. We see third parties entering into the market: we see The Warehouse, we see Costco and others. So that member might want to open the paper tomorrow morning and see all of the commentators congratulating this Government on the work it’s doing in improving competition across the economy.

Question No. 12 to Minister

Members, I have inadvertently broken the rules. I have asked the Hon Marama Davidson to return on the basis that she has question No. 12. The Standing Orders do not actually allow me to do that. The member has already returned to the House, so I am going to be guided by the House.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. There has to be some penalty for getting kicked out—I say this with some experience. Now, if she was kicked out and she can return conveniently so she can do her next question, it seems like your penalty has been almost castrated, and that wouldn’t be a very good outcome. So I don’t think she should be allowed to ask the question.

That concludes oral questions.