Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Health: Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. How has Budget 2023 reduced the cost of healthcare for New Zealand households?

I was proud to announce that this Government is reducing the cost of healthcare to New Zealand households by removing the $5 copayment for prescription medicines in July this year. Removing the $5 charge will make it easier and cheaper for New Zealanders to access the medicines they need, having a meaningful impact on many households, particularly those who have multiple prescriptions to fill on a regular basis.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Can the Minister tell us more—why has the Government removed the $5 prescription fee from medicines?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The $5 charge is a barrier to some New Zealanders getting the medicines they need. As a doctor, there were times when my patients couldn’t get the medicines they needed to stay well. This is particularly the case for low-income households, Māori, Pasifika people, and disabled New Zealanders at a time when people are facing increasing pressures on household budgets.

Dr Tracey McLellan: How will this support the health and wellbeing of those New Zealanders?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: By removing the $5 co-payment on prescription medicines, we are investing in simple treatments that prevent chronic conditions becoming emergencies that need hospital treatment. We’re making it easier to get blood pressure treatment so fewer people have strokes. People will have more access to diabetes treatments that prevent kidney failure and blindness. We’re also making it easier to get cholesterol treatment to prevent heart attacks. This will help seniors on fixed incomes, young people needing contraception, and people with chronic conditions.

Dr Tracey McLellan: What feedback have you received about this policy?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Pharmacists and health advocates across the country have welcomed this policy. Unichem Central Pharmacy Rotorua owner, David Honore, said, “It was a huge help. The co-payment has been a barrier for many of our patients.” Bindi Norwell of ProCare said, “Today’s announcement will save the Government money and shift the dial significantly from an equity perspective.” And Pharmacy Guild chief executive Andrew Gaudin, who has advocated for this policy for many years, said it would make a huge difference to patients who have previously had to make difficult choices when they are sick.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, particularly this Government’s action in securing a gold-standard trade agreement with the United Kingdom. From today, the UK free-trade agreement unlocks unprecedented access to the UK market for our exporters, adding up to a billion dollars a year to our GDP over time. Implementation of the agreement will immediately save around $37 million, with the instant elimination of tariffs and new duty-free quotas covering 99.5 percent of our current exports. This is a major delivery milestone and sits alongside the seven new or upgraded free-trade agreements secured to date by the Labour Government—which is helping to contribute to record earnings for our exporters and thereby helping to soften the pressure of the current global economic environment.

Christopher Luxon: Was his police Minister correct when she said, “New Zealanders feel safer under Labour.”, despite violent crime increasing 33 percent, retail crime doubling, and gang membership up 66 percent?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I know the member has concerns about literacy and numeracy in schools. One of the things that kids learn in schools around comprehension is to read the whole of the sentence rather than just a little bit of it. Because if he had done that, he would find that the Minister was specifically talking about the 1,800 extra police that have been put on the beat under this Government, which stands in quite stark contrast to the reduction in the number of police relative to the size of the population under the last National Government.

Christopher Luxon: Does he think New Zealanders feel safer?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think Kiwis feel safer when there are more police on the beat. And 1,800 extra police on the beat is a pretty good track record from this Government.

Christopher Luxon: Is violent crime higher or lower than six years ago?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member himself will know that the statistics around violent crime show that there has been an escalation in violent crime, and I think all Governments should take that seriously.

Christopher Luxon: Is retail crime higher or lower than six years ago?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It is higher.

Christopher Luxon: Is gang membership higher or lower than six years ago?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We’ve been very clear—the member himself has been very clear—that there has been an escalation in gang membership and gang activity in New Zealand. In particular, I note the member himself blames the Australians for that in his public comments when he talked about the fact that it was the 501s that have contributed to that. I’m very proud of the work that the police have been doing to crack down on gang activity. I note that something like 33,000 charges have been laid against gang members as part of Operation Cobalt. We are backing the police to do that work with extra resources and extra cops on the beat, which is more than they got under the last Government.

Christopher Luxon: Does he stand by his claim in January about ram raids, when he said, “I think it is a very significant priority and you can be reassured I won’t be taking my eyes off that one.”; and if so, why have ram raids increased 55 percent since he became Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question: yes, absolutely, and our work in that area is not done. The focus that we have had is on reducing offending rather than having young people going into a repeat cycle of offending. So the turnaround programmes that we’ve put in place, for example, have seen between 70 and 80 percent of the kids referred to those not reoffending. I note that the one policy the National Party have come up with—which is to send those kids to boot camps—results in about an 80 percent reoffending rate. So given the choice between a policy that could reduce reoffending by about 80 percent or have about 80 percent of them reoffending, of course only the National Party—or maybe the ACT Party—tend to choose the one that results in the higher level of reoffending.

Question No. 3—Environment

3. to the Minister for the Environment: Talofa lava. Does he have confidence that the approach to regulating wastewater discharges to the coastal marine and estuarine environment is fit for purpose, taking into account environmental and Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

There are longstanding problems with sewage discharges into the coastal marine and estuarine environments. Storm overflow events have become more common. Sewage discharges have continued because of under-investment in sewage treatment infrastructure. Improvements cannot be achieved via the planning system alone, which is why the Government is addressing these issues through the affordable water reforms. It is appalling that many of New Zealand’s beaches and estuaries are regularly polluted by sewage. We’re meant to be a First World country.

Teanau Tuiono: Does he consider it consistent with the aims of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement for waste water to be discharged from sewage plants into Hokianga Harbour, and, if not, why not?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No. It’s transparently obvious that we shouldn’t be pouring sewage into our estuaries.

Hon Marama Davidson: Talofa lava. What assurances can he give to the people of places like Kohukohu, Rāwene, Ōpōnoni, Ōmāpere, Waimā, Whirinaki, and Motukaraka that changes to the planning framework and water services will stop community waste-water plants discharging sewage into Hokianga Harbour?

Hon DAVID PARKER: There is, I’ve seen from the media, a live application to the Far North District Council in respect of some of those issues, and I expect those decisions will be taken by the council responsibly. I do note that the shorter, medium, and longer term solutions to these lack of infrastructure problems lie in the affordable water reforms rather than the resource management reforms.

Teanau Tuiono: What, if any, funding is the Ministry for the Environment providing to help Far North District Council shift to discharging waste water on to land rather than into the Hokianga Harbour?

Hon DAVID PARKER: None, because that’s not the role of the Ministry for the Environment. Affordable waters will address those issues.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he consider it fair that tangata whenua have to respond to every application made to destroy or degrade their local environment so that taonga can be protected?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I think it’s one of the strengths of the New Zealand system that people who are dissatisfied with applications to pollute have a right of participation. That includes tangata whenua as well as other New Zealanders.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement yesterday that “the operating allowances are designed to enable us to achieve particular fiscal goals. We have been able to achieve those goals, including keeping debt low and including our return to surplus”, and how have those goals changed since he became Minister of Finance?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part of the member’s question, I announced the changes to the Government’s fiscal rules ahead of Budget 2022. The first of those is to maintain an operating balance before gains and losses surplus between 0 and 2 percent of GDP on average over time in order to allow us to respond to economic shocks as the situation requires, but also ensuring that day-to-day spending is not adding to net core Crown debt over time. The second rule is to keep net core Crown debt below a ceiling of 30 percent of GDP on the new debt measure. As I said to the member in my response to her question yesterday, even though Budget allowances have from time to time been updated in light of events and additional forecasts, this is consistent with our overall strategy and is something that the Government should do in order to make sure that spending decisions remain consistent with our fiscal rules.

Nicola Willis: Does he still agree with the fiscal goal outlined by Grant Robertson MP, who, in his 2017 Budget Responsibility Rules, stated, “For the last 20 years, core Crown spending has been around 30 percent of GDP, and we will manage our expenditure carefully to continue this trend.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That very insightful comment from that member all those years ago is one that is still the goal. However, as the member is well aware, events occur—events like COVID or events like the global financial crisis (GFC), all of which require Governments to respond. The member needs to reflect that if she doesn’t believe that spending should have got to the levels that it did during COVID, be upfront with New Zealanders and tell them what wouldn’t have happened. Was it no wage subsidy? Was it no funding for the health system? New Zealanders needed a Government to step up and respond, and we did it.

Nicola Willis: Can he confirm that Government spending has not just exceeded that goal in the COVID lockdown years but every year since 2020 and is forecast to fail that goal for each of the next four years, and why is he now prepared to fail what he once believed was a core part of Budget responsibility?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member knows, what the Budget forecast shows is that we will return to around 31.5 percent as core Crown spending. The decision that the member could make, if she were in the position to do so, to click our fingers and say we’re going to go to 30 percent, would have a dramatic impact on the services that New Zealanders rely on. If the National Party wants to campaign on cutting funding for health and cutting funding for education, that’s fine. We’re not doing that.

Nicola Willis: Can he confirm that core Crown spending will lift to 33 percent of GDP next year, and doesn’t he think it’s a bit rich to keep blaming COVID for what is in fact his inability to control his expenses so that New Zealanders can have tax reduction?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the member now needs to answer the question for the people in Tairāwhiti and in Hawke’s Bay and in Auckland about how the National Party would pay for the recovery from the Auckland anniversary weekend floods and Cyclone Gabrielle, because the member well knows that the additional expenditure that the Government had to take on, from the half-yearly update up until now, in large part relates to that recovery and rebuild. On this side of the House, we think it is our job to support those communities. If the National Party wants to abandon them, they’ll have to answer for that.

Nicola Willis: Does he recall the 2018 Budget Responsibility Rules—here they are—which aim to reduce net core Crown debt to 20 percent of GDP, and can he confirm that by that measure debt will hit 43 percent of GDP next year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I can confirm is in the year following on from that, net core Crown debt was 18.6 percent and the Government met its objective. Then, an event called COVID happened. I know the member wants to wish it away, but she and her colleagues consistently asked for the Government to spend more money during the period of COVID. And yes, it is true that that means, on the old debt measure, which was not internationally comparable, we do reach the levels that the member is talking about. Again, this is all fine for the National Party to say this; they have to answer the question: what would be cut if they were to do anything different?

Nicola Willis: Does he still stand by the Budget responsibility rule that the Government will deliver a sustainable operating surplus across an economic cycle, and can he confirm that not only has he delayed surplus twice in a row but he is forecast to run six deficits in a row from 2020 to 2025?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I refer the member to my primary answer, where I did indeed explain to her last year’s Budget, where we updated the fiscal rules from the ones that she has just shown, also noting that, yes, it is correct that it will be six years. That is exactly the same length of time that the National Government took to get itself back into surplus after the GFC and the earthquakes. This is what Governments do. Governments step in to look after people during times of crisis. Again, the National Party has to explain what gets cut, which communities don’t get rebuilt after a cyclone. That’s what the National Party is, effectively, telling New Zealanders.

Nicola Willis: Isn’t it in fact the case that his Budget Responsibility Rules from 2018 are no longer worth the paper they were written on: he’s spending beyond what he promised, he’s running deficits, he’s loaded up the debt because he can’t control Government spending?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, and the member, as I said, needs to keep up. Last year, we had a thing called Budget 2022, where we reissued the fiscal rules to make sure (a) that we were operating on an internationally comparable basis and (b) that we set goals for ourselves to get back into surplus. The National Party can’t have it both ways. Asking for more spending, thinking that they can reduce taxes, and thinking that they can reduce debt—it’s the fiscal Bermuda Triangle, and Nicola Willis is right where Paul Goldsmith was.

Question No. 5—Education (Māori Education)

5. to the Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education): Talofa. How is Budget 2023 supporting Māori education?

Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. The balanced approach taken in Budget 2023 has enabled the Government to continue our substantial support for Māori education with a further $225 million investment to support ākonga and kura across the country. This funding will improve and modernise kura infrastructure across Aotearoa, fund learning support co-ordination for schools and kura providing kaupapa Māori and Māori-medium education, and support the roll-out of our local histories curriculum to make sure ākonga learn more about their home and its people, and much more.

Paul Eagle: What is the significance of the investment in kura infrastructure?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, Budget 2023 sees the biggest ever investment in kaupapa Māori and Māori-medium infrastructure, with nearly $135 million targeted at building more classrooms and modernising existing ones, acquiring new land for more kura, and setting aside specific funding for the maintenance and remediation of kōhanga reo and puna reo across Aotearoa. This record investment builds on our consecutive investments in kura property across our previous two Budgets.

Paul Eagle: How will ākonga Māori benefit from the new funding for learning support?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Ākonga Māori and kaupapa Māori and Māori-medium education have been under-served by the education system in terms of their access to learning support. This $40 million initiative provides support for learners with the highest needs. It will impact about 25,000 ākonga Māori across 325 kura providing kaupapa Māori and Māori-medium education—that’s levels 1 and 2—and their whānau. It offers resourcing for the design and delivery of solutions to strengthen the capacity and capability of these schools and kura to identify, plan, and coordinate responses to the learning strengths and support needs of ākonga Māori, in partnership with whānau.

Paul Eagle: How else will ākonga Māori be supported through the Budget 2023 Māori education package?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, there are a number of ways, but I’ll just touch on two. First of all, nurturing mātauranga Māori through the continued support of Te Matatini and national primary and secondary school kapa haka competition, but also nearly $18 million providing 6,500 ākonga Māori to enter the Pūhoro STEMM Academy. This will enable them the opportunity to study and have employment opportunities in science, engineering, technology, the arts, and mathematics.

Question No. 6—Education

6. to the Minister of Education: Does she agree with the principal of New Zealand’s largest high school when he described the Government’s roll-out of the NCEA changes as creating a “ridiculous” situation which “doesn’t make any sense” and as “harming student outcomes”, and has she heard of any other schools that are planning on dropping NCEA level 1 next year because of similar concerns?

No. I do, however, hold the view that schools should make decisions based on what is appropriate for their students. NCEA level 1 has always been optional and remains so. Schools are not required to notify the ministry of whether they are offering NCEA level 1. I am aware of four secondary schools that have notified the ministry that they have opted not to offer NCEA level 1. The reasons for this vary greatly.

Erica Stanford: Can she explain why schools who have always offered NCEA level 1 are now choosing to pull out, specifically citing her changes to NCEA as the reason, as they are harming student outcomes?

Hon JAN TINETTI: NCEA level 1 remains an optional qualification. It has been optional since the introduction of NCEA in 2002. It is up to each school to decide what subject-based course offering for NCEA is best for their school community. I also point out that most other countries we benchmark against only have two years of high-stakes assessments, equivalent to our levels 2 and 3. So it is not unusual that level 1 is optional when compared to international standards.

Erica Stanford: Why didn’t she just pause the entire level 1, 2, and 3 NCEA reforms to ensure consistency, rather than forcing year 11 students to sit both new and old standards that top principals are now saying will harm student outcomes?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Because the evidence does not show that. We have piloted the new level 1 standards extensively, and none of the results found any issues with the transitioning between the new level 1 standards and the existing level 2 standards. I would like to highlight a quote from a science teacher from a large Auckland secondary school, whose students participated in the level 1 pilot and are then being taught the level 2 standards. I quote: “Students who entered level 2 chemistry and biology this year have brought a stronger systems-thinking approach to their studies of ecology, a deeper grasp of variation, leading to level 2 genetics, and level 1 understanding of microbes that feeds well into cell biology and physiology, etc., at level 2.”

Erica Stanford: Is the principal of an Auckland girls’ school wrong when she says the NCEA changes “dumbed down fundamentals like writing and maths” and a level 1 maths examination that “keeps standards high” is being removed?

Hon JAN TINETTI: What I would say to any principal is that the NCEA change programme has been developed with experts, with the sector, and decisions have been made in strong consultation with the professional advisory group on NCEA, who are made of experienced sector leaders, who, only this morning at the SPANZ conference in New Plymouth, told me that they are very happy with the changes that have been made.

Erica Stanford: What does it say for educational equity in this country when high-performing schools with more resources can offer superior-quality diplomas while everyone else is forced to use her second-rate NCEA level 1 qualification that will “harm student outcomes”?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I absolutely refute the characterisation of our NCEA programme that that member has made there. What I will point out is that, when the changes about NCEA first went out in 2018, one of the proposals was that level 1 was going to be dropped completely. But, ironically, it was the schools that came from low socio-economic areas who told us that, no, it was important for them to retain NCEA level 1, and that is exactly what we have done.

Question No. 7—Trade and Export Growth

7. to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: How will the New Zealand – United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement benefit New Zealand?

It’s a great day for exporters, for importers, and for the wider New Zealand economy. The United Kingdom - New Zealand free-trade agreement (FTA) has now officially entered into force. From today, New Zealand’s exporters will reap the rewards of this Government’s gold standard agreement. The UK FTA delivers unprecedented access to the fifth-largest economy in the world and a consumer market worth $3 trillion. As of today, 99.5 percent of current exports will now enter the UK duty-free, thanks to a combination of tariff eliminations and duty-free quotas. That saves Kiwi businesses $37 million from day one. I want to thank officials and the two Prime Ministers—Ardern and Hipkins—who have both pushed hard to get this FTA completed so quickly.

Ibrahim Omer: What does that mean for everyday New Zealanders?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: We know that one-in-four New Zealanders’ jobs depend on trade, and that employment grows up to 12 percent faster when businesses start exporting. In a cost of living crisis, the UK FTA cuts cost for exporters, boosts opportunities for small business, and creates and protects Kiwi jobs. The Labour Government knows that trade is key to our growing economy, and the UK FTA will boost our GDP by up to a billion dollars.

Ibrahim Omer: How does the UK FTA support our primary sector?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: More good news. The primary sector is hugely important to our economic security. Last year, we saw primary export earnings reach a record—a record—$53 billion. The UK FTA unlocks unprecedented access to the UK market for our farmers and growers, the kind of access that we haven’t seen since the 1970s. For example, our wine industry, New Zealand’s biggest export to the UK, has had at least $25 million in tariffs disappear overnight; honey producers will no longer face a 16 percent duty; and our dairy and red meat sectors will transition to duty-free quota access for the first time in 50 years.

Ibrahim Omer: How does the UK FTA support the Government’s trade recovery strategy?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: It just keeps getting better, I tell you! The Labour Government is committed to opening as many doors as possible for Kiwi exporters. Since 2017, we have signed seven new—seven new—or upgraded free-trade agreements: the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, thank you, Mr Parker; the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership; the EU FTA; the UK FTA; the Australia and New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement upgrade; China upgrade; and Singapore. What we have secured for New Zealanders is historic and I want to, once again, thank all the officials and politicians involved in that.

Question No. 8—Police

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

As per my response to written question No. 11101 and oral questions on 9 May, 11 May, 17 May, and yesterday, on 30 May, I again stand by my full statement that, “In my view, New Zealanders feel safer with a Government on track to deliver 1,800 additional police officers.”

Hon Mark Mitchell: Have ram raids increased or decreased since she became police Minister?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Ram raids peaked last year in August, with 116. Since that time, we have seen peaks and troughs. I acknowledge there is a problem, and I will continue to work to make sure we see those numbers come down.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was direct and time-bound, and it was not addressed in the period since the Minister became the Minister.

SPEAKER: That may or may not be correct; I wouldn’t have a clue. I didn’t hear it. The House is clearly telling me that it did not want to hear the answer. Settle down, and we might get to hearing some questions.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point of order—

SPEAKER: Another point of order?

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Yes. I think you’re absolutely right, Mr Speaker, but I would add that disorder arrives when Ministers do not address questions which are clear and obvious.

SPEAKER: Not in this instance. I was listening very carefully, and it started before the Minister opened her mouth.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Have ram raids increased or decreased since she became police Minister?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: We have seen in August 2022 a peak of 116; as of April, there were 68. There’s been a decrease of 41 percent since peak levels in 2022. We are now averaging approximately 55 a month.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That time—in silence—it was a very tight, clear, direct question. The Minister did not address the question at all.

SPEAKER: I disagree with you. You can use your supplementaries to find out more information.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Was the Minister the Minister of Police in August of last year?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I couldn’t hear the question, sorry.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Was the Minister the Minister of Police in August of last year?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: No.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Well, that just cost the—you can have an extra question for that.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So can the Minister please answer the question for the period that she has been Minister: have ram raids increased or decreased since she’s been Minister?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: As I’ve said clearly, there has been a peak at 116. Those levels fluctuate on any given month. If that member wants to get into the details per month, we’ve seen an increase of 10 from last month to this month.

Question No. 9—Agriculture

9. to the Minister of Agriculture: What official discussions, if any, has he had with his ministerial colleagues about a levy on nitrogen fertiliser used in agriculture, and what advice, by date and title, if any, has he received about a levy on nitrogen fertiliser used in agriculture?

This Government is committed to pricing agricultural emissions. Global trends and consumer expectations are changing, and it is imperative that we continue to lift our sustainability credentials and futureproof our export growth. The use of nitrogen fertiliser on farm and associated nitrous oxide is something we have always been looking at. It was in the He Waka Eke Noa partnerships proposal. It was in the Government’s consultation document. It was in Pricing agricultural emissions: Report under section 215 of the Climate Change Response Act 2002. I’ve had ongoing discussions about a range of options for nitrogen fertiliser with various ministerial colleagues, partners from the He Waka Eke Noa partnership, and from my officials, and those discussions have been supported by advice and briefings from officials, a large number of which are publicly available online.

Mark Cameron: Point of order, Mr Speaker. There were two legs to that question, and I seek your clarity and guidance, if I may. The question was on notice about the dates and titles of advice he received. He didn’t provide that information in his answer.

SPEAKER: I’ll give the member an extra question, and he can ask further questions to try and find out.

David Seymour: Point of order. The ACT caucus is very grateful for that additional supplementary question. However, I just do raise with you that quite often a Minister gives an answer that is very unsatisfactory and you say, “Well, you can have more supplementary questions.”, but I do question what is the point of having more supplementary questions if they never actually answer one. You just end up getting the same result more often.

SPEAKER: Yeah, and, as you can imagine, sometimes it’s difficult presiding and deciding against whether the Minister has answered or not in that moment. I’m not absolutely 100 percent sure that he didn’t, but I’m giving the member an extra question anyway. I mean, I could have said, “Well, yes, it has been addressed.” I’ve decided to err on the side that the member can explore further. That’s the reason why I’ve done it this way.

Mark Cameron: Has he asked for advice about what the average cost per hectare on any tax on nitrogen fertiliser will be for the average vegetable grower and/or dairy farmer; if not, why not?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I have asked for that at a different range of carbon prices and different scientific calculations. There is a whole range, and I’m sure it will be available for the member when he wants to inquire.

Mark Cameron: Will the Government remove barriers to technology that allow farmers to reduce their nitrogen footprint before it tries to introduce a fertiliser tax?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: We have no proposal to introduce a fertiliser tax. What I discussed with a number of partners from across the sectors was the dilemma that we face is that if we are to continue and, thanks to the Minister of Finance and Budget 2022, we put a billion dollars—a billion dollars—into the agricultural sector, $338 million of which went into research for agricultural emissions. But if we are to continue to put investment into R & D and then to support farmers with the uptake of that R & D, we need to generate some revenue. The generosity of the taxpayer can’t continue forever. And we have in the 1980s actually removed subsidies from agriculture and farmers are quite proud of that. So the discussion I had with some industry leaders was: did they think that a levy on nitrogenous fertilisers was a good way of raising revenue to pay for the research and development and the assistance that might be needed for the uptake of technology when it was discovered?

Mark Cameron: Has he asked for any advice on the likely impact the tax on nitrogen fertiliser will have on the cost of living; if not, why not?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Not directly. Can I point to the average price of urea: over the past two years, it’s gone from about $500 to $600 a tonne up to $1,400 a tonne, and farmers and growers have had to continue to pay for that. That wasn’t sustainable. It’s now dropped back down to about $900 a tonne and it may come back down further. The idea of a levy that would have contributed to money for research and development was my idea of a possible good investment. The industry leaders have come back to me and said they don’t like that. We now have to sit down and work on the best way forward of following through with He Waka Eke Noa, but dealing with the dilemma that they don’t want to pay anything until they’ve worked out the full analysis of sequestration options. That will take some time. It will take more research and development. The issue is who will pay for that.

Mark Cameron: Will he now rule out a tax on urea; if not, why not?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: There has been no considerate, comprehensive consideration of this by Government or by Ministers at all. I’ve had brief discussions with sector leaders; they’ve indicated that they don’t want to proceed with that. The question I have is whether I should then bother to put that proposal up to my colleagues. I probably think not, but I’m not going to rule anything in or out here and now.

Question No. 10—Disability Issues

10. to the Minister for Disability Issues: Fa'afetai lau afioga le Fofoga Fetalai. How does Budget 2023 support disabled people?

Budget 2023 increased the support for disabled people to access disability services, and continues our transformation of the disability support system. This includes $863.6 million to help ease cost pressures for disability support services. It also ensures that we can meet increases in service volumes due to demand—this includes increased demand for individualised funding, which gives disabled people more control over the support that they receive. Through this Budget, we’re also ending the minimum wage exemption, improving access to family and sexual violence prevention services for disabled people who need them, and making half-price fares for Total Mobility permanent. Budget 2023 adds to this Government’s record investment in supporting disabled people.

Anahila Kanongata'a: How will these investments impact the lives of disabled people?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: These investments are significant. Our disability support system currently supports approximately 120,000 people to access over 2.2 million days of care in residential care and the equivalent of 4.9 million funded support hours through individualised funding, as well as providing for equipment, vehicle, and housing modifications. This Budget funding continues support for Whaikaha - Ministry of Disabled People, which we established last year, to continue their work to transform the disability support system to ensure that disabled people have greater choice and control over the support that they receive.

Anahila Kanongata'a: What can she tell us about the changes to the minimum wage exemption?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Currently, we have disabled people being paid less than the minimum wage for their work on the basis that they are perceived to be less productive, and that just is not right. Our Government will end the discriminatory and unfair minimum wage exemption that allows more than 800 disabled people to be paid less than the minimum wage. Going forward, the current exemption will be replaced with a wage supplement that will ensure that employment opportunities are protected and that disabled people are paid at least the minimum wage.

Anahila Kanongata'a: How does Budget 2023 support the elimination of family and sexual violence against disabled people?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: For decades, disabled people have either had to turn to mainstream services that often try to accommodate their needs but don’t always have the skills or the facilities required, or they just don’t access those services at all. We are addressing this in Budget 2023 by funding extra support to enable our existing mainstream family and sexual violence providers to meet the accessibility needs of disabled people and tangata whaikaha Māori. We are also providing funding for specialist support. This twin-track approach gives disabled people choice in the types of support that they can access when they need it. This is a Government that’s committed to investing in disabled people, and that’s exactly what Budget 2023 does.

Question No. 11—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can he stand by the track record of this Government, which has not fully implemented any of the key recommendations of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group designed to ensure people have an adequate income and standard of living and can live with dignity?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because this Government’s made enormous progress towards implementing the recommendations from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group, including delivering significant increases to those on the lowest incomes, and particularly those who are reliant on the State for their income.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he agree that it is unacceptable to be punishing the poorest in society by slashing the little income they have with benefit sanctions, especially at a time when one in 10 children and one in five tamariki Māori experience material hardship; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I do think it’s important that in considering welfare policy we seek to get the balance right between ensuring that we are supporting the most vulnerable, that we are encouraging people to go into work when they’re able to go into work, but that we also consider the consequences of those decisions on children.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will he, then, remove all benefit sanctions?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That’s not something that we’re currently considering.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is he comfortable that some disabled adults and children will get less from Work and Income via the disability allowance and temporary additional support because of the scrapping of the prescription fee policy when levels of support for disabled people have been identified as severely inadequate; if so, will he finally increase the disability allowance and child disability allowance?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The people that the member is speaking to will get the benefits of not having to pay the $5 prescription co-payment, so I think the whole thrust of his question is incorrect.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is he doing, if anything, to respond to the 165 percent increase in food bank use across the country over the last three years, highlighted by the recent report of the Auckland City Mission that it now distributes 65,000 food parcels a year, up from 9,000 food parcels 10 years ago?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m particularly aware that, if we’re talking about food banks in Auckland, one of the pressure points for them in recent times has been the effect of the recent severe weather, and we have been working to support them through that. We are very focused as a Government, and have been in the entire time we’ve been in Government, on improving the lot of the New Zealanders who are living on the lowest incomes. That includes those working on the minimum wage—they’ve seen the minimum wage increase every year since we’ve been in Government. It includes those who are dependent on the State for their income, whether that’s superannuitants or those on the job seeker benefit, or those who are unable to work. We have been focused on making sure that we are increasing the amount of income that they are getting as well. I don’t think any party in Parliament should be satisfied with people having to go to food banks to seek that level of support.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by his decision to rule out removing GST from food when a recent poll showed that more than half of the country are buying less fruit and vegetables due to rising food costs, which in the last year have had the highest annual increase for three decades?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Removing GST off food would be an incredibly expensive policy. As I have indicated before, repeatedly, the Government has had a difficult balancing act in this year’s Budget to make sure we’re supporting people through a cost of living crisis whilst also making sure that we deal with some of the underlying drivers of that, the most notable of which is the level of inflation that we have experienced. As the Reserve Bank indicated last week, the Government’s Budget is putting downward pressure on inflation, and we should see inflation back within the target range by the end of next year. That is actually one of the best things we can do to ease the financial pressure that all New Zealand families are facing.

Question No. 12—Statistics

12. to the Minister of Statistics: Does she stand by her statement to media when asked if she would stake her job on a 90 percent census collection rate, “Absolutely”, and does she stand by all her statements and actions relating to the 2023 Census?

Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. Absolutely, I stand by my confidence in Tatauranga Aotearoa Stats NZ to deliver a census that gives us a robust dataset, giving Government agencies, city and district councils, iwi and community groups, and business good information to plan for the future. In answer to the second part of the question, I stand by my actions and statements in the context in which they were made.

Simon Watts: Can she confirm that despite spending over twice as much as the 2018 Census, the current Māori response rate is just 4 percent higher than the 2018 Census and well below the 90 percent target?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: There were some considerable issues with the 2018 Census, which resulted in an overall response rate of, unfortunately, around about 81 percent overall. Significant effort has been made in this census to ensure that we get a good overall response rate. We’re now sitting close to 88, 89 percent overall, and we’re confident that we’ll get there. In terms of the Māori response rate, the response rate in 2018—the raw individual partial response rate—actually sat at about 67 percent. We are now tracking along at about 72 percent from Māori. We would, of course, like that to be higher, so I encourage any iwi leaders, any people who are prominent in the Māori communities, any sports players who can, to encourage people in the Māori communities to complete their census.

Simon Watts: Can she confirm media reports that the number of people undertaking personal grievances relating to the 2023 Census has doubled since it was last reported, and what is the number of personal grievances received to date?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: I do understand that there are some personal grievances being taken by some census workers against the person or agency which employed them. That is an ongoing process, and it is an operational matter for Stats NZ.

Simon Watts: Point of order, Mr Speaker. You may be expecting what I am going to ask, but my question was pretty clear, in regards to the number of personal grievances received to date, and that wasn’t answered.

SPEAKER: It was definitely addressed, though.

Simon Watts: Has she spoken to the Minister of Justice about reports that they will be using that same recruitment contractor for the general election as was used for the 2023 Census, given that contractor now has multiple personal grievance cases taken against them, and, if so, why not?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: I have not spoken to the Minister of Justice about that.