Oral Questions

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

Yes, in particular this Government’s decision to scrap the $5 prescription co-payment, meaning that an estimated 3 million New Zealanders will no longer have to worry about the cost of collecting their medication. More than 135,000 adults didn’t collect their prescription because of cost in the last financial year. We know that this is a particular issue for low-income families, and it does, on occasion, result in avoidable hospitalisation. This policy will make a difference.

Christopher Luxon: Does he think it’s a good use of taxpayer money to lecture Kiwis about taking shorter showers and unplugging appliances on the very same day that interest rates were hiked for the 12th time in a row?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I do recall, as a brand new member of Parliament back in 2009, being summonsed to a launch held by the Hon Gerry Brownlee, no doubt advised by Chris Bishop, launching the Energy Spot campaign that did exactly what the member is now complaining about.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That one was brilliant.

Christopher Luxon: Yeah, exactly. That was a good one. Will the “finding money in weird places” campaign look at wasteful Government spending—maybe like the $3 million being spent on advertising telling Kiwis to take shorter showers, use steam cookers, and unplug their appliances?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I do believe the “finding money in weird places” is going to be the title of National’s alternative fiscal plan when they do finally work out how it is that they’re going to pay for all the promises that they’re making.

Christopher Luxon: Well, in that spirit, has he actually asked his Ministers to look for taxpayer money in other weird places—maybe like the $30 billion for light rail or the hundreds of millions of dollars he personally wasted on a failed polytechnic megamerger?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In terms of the cost of light rail, of course, the overall cost of light rail has not yet been determined and it has not been budgeted for. With regard to the polytech system, I make no apology for putting extra money into vocational education and training to clean up the mess that was left behind by the last National Government, where our polytechs were going broke.

Christopher Luxon: How much can a typical family save by taking shorter showers and unplugging appliances, and how does that compare to the extra $760 a fortnight they’re now paying for their mortgage thanks to his Government’s addiction to spending?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In terms of the latter part of the member’s question, one of the reasons that we have been very clearly focused in this year’s Budget on making sure that we get the books back into balance—that we continue to manage the economy responsibly so that inflation does continue to track down—is that we do want to see interest rates coming down over the medium term as well. I note that the member and his party still aren’t being upfront with New Zealanders about the effect of their proposed tax policy, which would be to keep inflation higher for longer and interest rates higher for longer.

Christopher Luxon: Does he agree with Megan Woods that “small steps can add up to savings that make a real difference” and, if so, why has his Government refused to take any steps—big or small—to reduce wasteful spending, to take the pressure off inflation and interest rates?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Small steps can make a big difference—just ask the member sitting beside him, who has been taking all sorts of small steps! The Government has been very focused on taking the pressure off inflation, and I do quote the Reserve Bank Governor, who said that the Government is “being more a friend than a foe to monetary policy when it comes to reducing inflation.”

Christopher Luxon: Why did he increase spending by another $19 billion at the Budget, which Treasury, the Reserve Bank, and all the major bank economists say will lead to inflation and interest rates being higher for longer?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That is not what they are saying. In fact, I’ll quote the Reserve Bank: “We totally understand the challenges that society’s going through, and the Government spending/investment that’s needed. It’s net contractionary through the forecast period.” If the member is going to quote the Reserve Bank, he should at least try and do it accurately.

Christopher Luxon: Has he been following his own Government’s excellent advice by taking shorter showers and unplugging the appliances, or is it that he just tells Kiwis that to distract them from his Government’s economic mismanagement and addiction to spending?

Hon Grant Robertson: He’s so tight he’d always do that!

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Minister of Finance is suggesting that I’m so tight that I always do that! But I think the point remains: it is valid to encourage New Zealanders to think about the decisions they take on a day-to-day basis and what that can do for their energy demand, and it’s just as valid to do it now as it was when Gerry Brownlee was doing it.

Question No. 2—Energy and Resources

2. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What action is the Government taking to reduce emissions in the energy sector?

Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. On 21 May, the Prime Minister announced the Government is partnering with New Zealand Steel to install an electric arc furnace, which will remove 800,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year. This is New Zealand’s biggest ever emissions reduction project. This project, from the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund, or GIDI, is evidence that decarbonisation does not mean de-industrialisation and demonstrates that a low-emissions economy can not only be good for the climate but also can be a win for minimising waste, retaining jobs, and improving New Zealand’s economic resilience.

Helen White: How does the marginal abatement cost of this investment compare to the cost of purchasing units overseas?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government’s investment in this project is excellent value for money, with an abatement cost of $16.20 per tonne of carbon. For context, this is much less than the current carbon price of $55 per tonne and significantly less than overseas emissions trading schemes are currently paying, and the forecast price. This is an effective way for us to invest in New Zealand jobs rather than paying other countries to offset their emissions.

Helen White: Why can’t we rely on the emissions trading scheme (ETS) alone to drive emissions reductions?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The independent Climate Change Commission has been clear that the ETS alone is not sufficient for New Zealand to meet its climate goals, with the ETS needing to be significantly higher than it is today to justify fully funding projects. One industrial user I’ve spoken to has said that without the complementary measures like GIDI, the ETS price would have to be over $200 for these vital decarbonisation projects to stack up for their businesses. This would massively impact the New Zealand economy, including driving up the cost of New Zealanders’ energy. For example, this would add more than 40c per litre to the price of petrol.

Helen White: How will this project support jobs at New Zealand Steel’s Glenbrook mill?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government’s partnership with New Zealand Steel will massively reduce emissions while keeping 1,300 highly skilled jobs in New Zealand. New Zealand Steel has committed to a reskilling programme for existing workers as part of their transition. The project will also provide significant benefits to the local community as the Glenbrook mill is the largest single-site employer in the Franklin Local Board area, employing more than 4,000 full-time roles across its New Zealand and Pacific Island operations.

Stuart Smith: Oh, thank you, Mr Speaker. Why is the Government giving $140 million in corporate welfare to a foreign multinational company who had a nearly $3 billion net profit in 2021, and, instead, why won’t this Government stop giving money to wealthy corporates so that everyday Kiwis can get ahead?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: While I reject the premise of the question around corporate welfare, I would point that member to the point that this is a recycling of the money paid by emitters, that New Zealand Steel is what we call one of our climate- exposed trading companies, and that the money that is being invested in New Zealand Steel is less than three years of the money that they get paid as an offset. I am still waiting to hear from the National Party where they are going to cut 800,000 tonnes of carbon a year, the equivalent of all the cars in Christchurch. They signed us up to climate agreements—time to show us the plan.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Yes, in particular, the Government’s work to ease the cost of living pressures by extending 20 hours of free early childhood education to two-year-olds. We know that childcare can be one of the biggest costs that families face. Families with a two-year-old child who attends early childhood education 20 hours a week will save an estimated $133 a week in childcare costs as a result of this policy.

David Seymour: How is it possible that someone could spend $50 a month on prescriptions when there are 12 months in a year and the cost of prescriptions under current policy is capped at $100 per year?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think the member answered his own question in the last part of his question.

David Seymour: How much is his Government budgeting to spend this coming financial year, and does his repeated reference to “a coalition of cuts” mean that he can’t imagine saving a single dollar from that amount?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I can give the member the precise amount. If he’s asking for core Crown expenses in this financial year, it’s $128 billion.

David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Just to clarify, it was this coming financial year.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Sorry, it’s $136.99 billion.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister not believe that a single dollar can be saved from that $137 billion, meaning anyone who wants to save is a “coalition of cuts”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government has already indicated that there is significant reprioritisation within the Budget.

David Seymour: Does he believe that the majority of Kiwis who told 1News Kantar that they want a tax cut are also part of the “coalition of cuts”, or does he agree with his deputy leader who told Breakfast TV yesterday that maybe those people answering that poll just don’t understand tax cuts?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, I certainly understand that low-income earners don’t want to have a tax increase, which is the member’s proposal.

David Seymour: Has the Prime Minister read ACT’s alternative Budget, A Time for Truth, and, if so, how did he miss the bit where every single earner, including low earners, are better off?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have indeed read the ACT Party’s tax policy and it is without doubt that they want to increase tax rates for the lowest income earners. It’s there in black and white.

David Seymour: Did the Prime Minister see the low and middle income tax offset and carbon tax refund that would leave every single earner better off, and if he missed that, what else is he missing when he’s in charge of the country’s finances?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I can assure the member that I did read his tax policy, and I don’t think that the name on the front of it truly reflects it.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister think that $2.8 million being spent by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority to tell people to have shorter showers could be cut, given anyone with an ounce of common sense knows they can already save money by using less power, or is it time for this Government’s spending to take a cold shower?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I do think it is important that consumers are given good fact-based information about how they can reduce their energy use in order to save money, and in order to overall reduce our energy demand. It is just as important now as it was when the National Government repeatedly launched energy efficiency campaigns when they were in Government, supported by the ACT Party.

David Seymour: Does he think that the $18 million in the Budget for “public awareness of Matariki” could be cut given a popular website called G-o-o-g-l-e dot c-o-m can find 3.4 million results mentioning Matariki in 0.31 seconds?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It’s good to see the member has diversified his Google searches away from his own name. But I do think that Matariki is a holiday that New Zealand should be proud of, and I have no issue with us spending a very modest amount of money helping to promote Matariki, understanding of what Matariki is, and New Zealanders’ celebration of it.

David Seymour: Will he stand and tell this House that every single one of the 15,458 extra fulltime-equivalent bureaucrats his Government takes on have added value for New Zealand taxpayers; and if so, can those results be found where—in health, education, safer streets, or maybe the cost of living?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That includes people protecting our border so that we don’t end up with things like Mycoplasma bovis, for example—an area where we might have under-invested in the past. It includes the case officers working at Work and Income who are getting record numbers of people off benefits and into work. It includes teacher aides who work with some of our most vulnerable children, and particularly those with additional learning needs. It includes the social workers who work through Oranga Tamariki with some of our most vulnerable children. I could go on—it includes people working in the corrections system, and I note the member himself is promoting to employ even more people in the corrections system so he can lock more people up. The member might like to call those people “bureaucrats”; I don’t agree with that characterisation.

David Seymour: After six years of spending $50 billion a year more than when he started—with no demonstrable results, just spending—can the Minister honestly deny that he is not leading the “coalition of klutz”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government is delivering results for the extra spending for New Zealanders.

Question No. 4—Transport

4. to the Minister of Transport: How will Budget 2023 help to get more Kiwis on to public transport?

Last week, in Budget 2023, the Government committed to delivering one of the largest packages of investment in public transport in New Zealand’s history. As a part of this, we’ve announced that we’re making funding available to councils to provide free fares on buses, trains, and ferries for children aged five to 12, and half-price discounts for all passengers aged between 13 and 24, with that funding available from 1 July this year. We know that transport can be a big cost for Kiwi families, and this policy will help to ease cost of living pressures for those families right around the country. Free fares for under-13s could save around $30 per week for the average household of two children, and half-price fares for under-25s as well as community services card holders and total mobility card users in the disabled community will help save over 1.6 million Kiwis money if they use those services. By delivering cheaper fares to targeted groups like children and community services card holders, Budget 2023 will deliver Kiwis a more sustainable, inclusive, safe, and accessible transport system while helping the bus congestion and keeping prices down, and will lower our carbon emissions.

Shanan Halbert: How will the funding made available in Budget 2023 help to tackle bus driver shortages?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: In addition to delivering targeted fare reductions, Budget 2023 enables further progress to improve bus driver wages, which will help to reduce bus driver shortages and make services more reliable. The Budget enables public transport authorities to raise the base wage to $30 per hour for urban drivers and $28 for regional drivers, and introduces split-shift allowances and penal rates for those working late at night. This builds on our work in Budget 2022, which supported phase one of improvements to bus driver conditions. The result of that work has meant that we’ve been able to reduce the bus driver shortage from a peak of 860 in December of last year, to under 500 now, with hundreds more bus drivers currently being recruited. We’ve delivered an average increase to bus drivers’ wages of over 58 percent since we came into office, and this will help to deliver more sustainable and reliable services.

Shanan Halbert: How will Budget 2023 funding support councils to restore more bus services?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Budget 2023 also puts more investment on the table for councils to restore public transport services to pre-pandemic levels. Public transport patronage has been steadily recovering since the pandemic, but it hasn’t yet reached the same levels. The additional funding that we’ve provided will help councils to look at restoring services where they’ve had to make reductions and avoid any further cuts to those important services for our communities.

Shanan Halbert: What other investments has the Government made in Budget 2023 to boost public transport availability and reliability?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Late last week, I was very pleased to join regional council chair Daran Ponter and local MPs Terisa Ngobi and Tangi Utikere to celebrate Budget 2023’s investment to co-fund a fleet of 18 new trains for the lower North Island, which is going to deliver a step change to public transport services along both the Wairarapa and Kāpiti lines. The investment will strengthen those public transport routes, reduce time for travellers, and result in a much cleaner service. Everyone in New Zealand will benefit from the investments made in Budget 2023 for improved access to public transport, cheaper fares, and reducing congestion.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with Treasury’s statement in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update 2023 that “relative to the Half Year Update … interest rates are likely to stay higher for longer to manage inflationary pressure”, and what impact does he expect this will have on mortgage holders?

In answer to the first part of the question, I would note that the forecasts in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update (BEFU) are Treasury’s independent forecasts. But I would agree with the full quote from the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update, which reads: “relative to the Half Year Update, the unemployment rate is forecast to peak lower, while interest rates are likely to stay higher for longer to manage inflationary pressure. Inflation has already begun moderating, and the Treasury expects further moderation ahead, with inflation falling to 4.5% by the end of 2023 and dropping inside the Reserve Bank’s target band of 1-3% inflation by late-2024.” In answer to the second part of the question, the impact of the higher interest rates since the Treasury’s previous set of forecasts in December 2022 will obviously depend on the specifics of any household’s individual situation, including, for example, the term of their mortgage and the reaction of their bank.

Nicola Willis: Well, has he considered the situation of a family with a $500,000 mortgage who were paying $492 in interest a fortnight just two years ago and who, when they re-fix their mortgage this week, will find themselves paying $1,258 in interest a fortnight—that is, $765 more each fortnight—and did he think about them when he decided to put his foot down on the spending pedal yet again?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We gave considerable thought as we put the Budget together to the circumstances of all New Zealanders, including those who the member references. It’s the reason why the Budget acts as a disinflationary measure across the forecast period.

Nicola Willis: Does he see a connection between historic levels of borrowing, spending, and money printing on his Government’s watch, and the fact that New Zealanders are now experiencing the sharpest increase in official interest rates in our history?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I often reflect upon the period of time during which New Zealand faced up to the COVID pandemic, and both the Reserve Bank, through its monetary policy, and the Government, through its fiscal policy supported New Zealanders to get through that period of time. During that period of time, I was constantly asked by members opposite to spend more money. I also note that when the Reserve Bank began raising interest rates, almost consistently in the first couple or three times they did it, the Leader of the Opposition called for more spending during that period.

Nicola Willis: Was Treasury correct to point out that in each of his past five Budgets, he has blown his own operating allowance, such that, on average, he spends $600 million more than he says he will, and why is that Minister incapable of sticking to his own spending limit?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Two points in response to that. The first, as the member knows, is 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. The second point I’d note for the member, in respect of this year’s Budget, is that between the half-year economic update and when we delivered the Budget, New Zealand had the second-biggest ever weather event or natural disaster that we have faced. I do note that the member asking the question has not explained to New Zealanders how her party would be paying for the recovery and the rebuild of those areas. We are standing with those regions. Yes, it does cost a little bit more, but it happens to be the right thing to do.

Nicola Willis: Well, isn’t it correct that his Budget provided more cash for the Government’s struggling landlord Kāinga Ora than it did for the entire national resilience plan?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: If the member is standing up in front of the House today and saying not only will she not commit to building an additional 3,000 public houses but she won’t commit to completing the 4,500 that are currently being built, that is a pretty big thing for the member to say in this House. Mind you, she might just be taking lessons from her leader about making up policy in public meetings.

Nicola Willis: Does he accept Treasury’s conclusion published last year that “government investment and consumption tends to have the largest effects on domestic demand and interest rates,” while transfers and tax changes have less effect, meaning that, dollar for dollar, tax relief is less inflationary than Government spending, and why didn’t he in his Budget reduce taxes and let New Zealanders keep more of what they earn?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think the member needs to look very carefully at the design of the tax package that she is putting forward, and ask herself, in the environment that we’re in right now, if she really, really thinks that giving the kind of tax cuts to the highest-income earners would not be inflationary and, apart from anything else, would be the wrong thing to do. In answer to the first part of her question, I just invite the member to read past the executive summary of the BEFU, where her quote came from, to page 15, which shows real Government consumption declining over the forecast period.

Question No. 6—Pacific Peoples

6. to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: How does Budget 2023 foster the development of Pacific language initiatives?

Fa‘afetai Afioga Fofoga Fetalai. Budget 2023 prioritises investment in skills alongside the cost of living support and infrastructure investment for cyclone recovery. For Pacific communities, our languages, cultures, and identities are essential to health and prosperity. The Budget brings this to life with a new investment of $13.3 million to deliver our Pacific Languages Strategy. The Budget investment ensures our communities have more opportunities to hear, speak, and learn our languages. It is also another reason to celebrate during Samoan Language Week. “Mitamita i lau gagana, maua‘a lou fa‘asinomaga”, which translates to “Be proud of your language and grounded in your identity.”

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: Are there wider implications for Pacific languages and wellbeing through Budget 2023?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Fa‘afetai tele lava. In the Pacific peoples portfolio, we are funding new initiatives worth a total of $51 million, on top of other investments to date. This year’s Budget built on $683 million invested since 2019, which means over $734 million has been invested over successive Pacific wellbeing packages. Thriving languages is a key goal for Pacific communities under the Lalanga Fou framework, and so too is the goal of building prosperous communities. We are investing almost $17 million in this goal, which will be focused on Pacific workers and businesses.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What feedback has the Minister received from Pacific communities to the Budget initiatives?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Malo lava. Feedback from a week of touring the country to answer questions about the Budget made it clear: the top impacts on Pacific communities are those shared across other Kiwi families. Alongside our Deputy Prime Minister, Carmel Sepuloni, who is currently representing Aotearoa New Zealand at Samoa’s 61st anniversary of independence commemorations, Pacific communities want to make it easy to put food on the table, help our children to get a best start in life, and lower the barriers to good healthcare. When Pacific communities looked at Budget 2023, they identified four major wins: 20 hours’ free early childhood education for 2-year-olds; $5 prescription fees scrapped; free public transport for under-13s, half price for under-25s; 100,000 warmer Kiwi homes. Whether you’re a pre-schooler, a young person aspiring to get into a new career, or one of our Pacific elders, this is the Budget for our people.

Question No. 7—Police

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

I, again, stand by my full statement, which is, “It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer with a Government on track to deliver 1,800 extra police.”

Hon Mark Mitchell: How can she say that New Zealanders feel safer if, by her own admission, there is an increase in crime?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I can say that. What I did say is that New Zealanders feel safer with 1,800 extra police on the beat. What I will note is that not only were front-line services diminished under the previous Government but significant numbers of police stations around New Zealand closed when the member was in Government.

SPEAKER: Order! That was a straight-up question. It didn’t need the political jibe. Mark Mitchell can have an extra question.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When she said there is an increase in crime, what has been the increase in violent retail crime?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I have acknowledged that there has been an increase in retail crime, and that is exactly why this Government has increased the number of available funds for the fog cannon subsidy—$11 million in additional funds was announced yesterday in order to assist those small-business owners who are experiencing an increase in retail crime.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why has retail crime risen a further 55 percent whilst the Government’s failed fog cannon policy has been rolled out?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I note that the National Government—the National Party—[Interruption]

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m happy with that answer! Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: That definitely wasn’t a point of order, and if you had any more supplementaries, I’ve just taken them away. Have you finished your answer, Minister?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: No, I haven’t finished. I would like to say that that figure is too high—that’s why we are committed to bringing it down. It was not brought down under the previous Government when there was not front-line investment in services and, further, there was not investment in family harm services in our communities. We know for a fact that young people in New Zealand were left in homes, exposed to rates of family harm, and 10 years later, those young people are presenting in our criminal justice system.

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

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I didn’t hear that question, sorry. Can you repeat the question?

SPEAKER: Could you ask the question again?

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

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I have been clear that we have a problem with retail crime in New Zealand. They spiked in August of last year and they average out at 55 per month over this year. That figure is too high, and that is the reason why this Government is investing in front-line police; that’s why our Government is investing in retail crime prevention such as fog cannons; and it’s also why this Government is investing in programmes like “circuit breaker” that identify and target the drivers of crime.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. That was a very straightforward question, which was, “Have ram raids gone up or down since Ms Andersen became the Minister?” There was a long answer that didn’t address the question.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Yes, it did. She talked about a peak.

SPEAKER: Shut up. Goodness me. I’m not responsible for the quality of answer, but on reflection, I think it was addressed. It took a long time to get there, but it did.

David Seymour: Does the Minister stand by her statement just then, “we have a problem with retail crime”, or does she agree with the Prime Minister, who said clearly on Morning Report this morning that we don’t have a problem with crime, just a “challenge”?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I am focused on addressing the drivers of crime. If that member wants to make a word salad over what has been said over different people, that’s great for him. I am focused, as the Minister of Police, on addressing the underlying drivers of crime in our community, and one of those is family harm.

David Seymour: Point of order. The question was very simple: does she stand by that statement or does she support the Prime Minister’s statement? She didn’t come close to addressing it; just made a series of unrelated statements about her motivations. If that stands as addressing a question, I don’t think we can get anyone to answer anything.

SPEAKER: The member can ask the question again. I’m not certain either way, so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.

David Seymour: Does the Minister stand by her statement just then that “we [face] a problem with retail crime”, or does she agree with the Prime Minister, who clearly told Morning Report this morning that there is no problem with crime, just a “challenge”?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: There is no difference to what I have said today and what the Prime Minister has said.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Could the Minister explain how a further $11 million being put towards fog cannons is addressing the drivers of crime?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I have been upfront in saying this Government is tackling the problem from both ends. From one end is to enable those small-business owners to feel safer in their workplace. I note that on Radio New Zealand this morning, that member was in favour of a fog cannon scheme, and said it would be funded under a potential future National Government—clearly one of the areas they wouldn’t cut. The other area that I would say that we’re tackling the problem from is reducing the drivers of crime by enabling programmes like “circuit breaker” and Kotahi Te Whakaaro to work with young people who are in homes which are experiencing complex and ongoing problems.

Question No. 8—Housing

8. to the Minister of Housing: Has she received any advice on the difference between the infrastructure cost and environmental impact of greenfield development compared to providing more homes within existing urban areas; if so, what does that advice say?

Yes. The cost-benefit analysis (CBA) commissioned from Sense Partners and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) for the Medium Density Residential Standards work had material on this. The CBA showed that the 2016 estimated gross infrastructure cost per dwelling was $38,774 for urban intensification and $64,954 for greenfields. These numbers are based on the medium scenario. It is also important to note that infrastructure costs can vary considerably across projects. Further to this, in 2017, Auckland Council estimated the average infrastructure cost of greenfield developments were $146,000 per household. The report also showed that while there were environmental impacts of land development, the consequences of these were less felt in brownfield developments. The environmental costs for brownfield sites were estimated at $289.41 per dwelling compared to greenfield sites, which were estimated at $725.15 per dwelling.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Thank you for that answer. Has she seen the research demonstrating much higher transport costs for households living on the urban fringe of cities like Auckland, which can more than offset the benefit of cheaper housing in those places?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The work commissioned for the CBA from Sense Partners and PwC in calculating those infrastructure costs of brownfields versus greenfields did take into account the increased cost of transport infrastructure as well.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order. My question wasn’t about the infrastructure in this case; it was about the private transport costs for households in addition to the infrastructure—I mean, as a separate point.

SPEAKER: Do you want to add to that?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes. My point was that that analysis that was done for the CBA did look at those different costs that fall on households, comparing brownfields to greenfields.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does she stand by her statement in relation to the Medium Density Residential Standards that “we were more than willing to come back to the table, to have a discussion”; and, if so, would she be open to measures to enable further urban density together with better environmental outcomes?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I do stand by that statement. I think New Zealand is a better place when we can have political agreement around something as fundamental as our planning laws to handle a housing crisis. I am open to working with other parties so that we can have that certainty that we can have the houses built, and that we can have some resolutions to a housing crisis.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Has she requested or received any advice on how development bonuses, as proposed by the Green Party when the Medium Density Residential Standards changes were going through Parliament, could provide for greater development potential, more energy-efficient housing, and more accessible housing?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We have done a lot of work on how it is the best way that central government can be involved in funding the infrastructure that is required for the funding of either brownfield or greenfield developments. One of the pieces of work that we’ve spent a lot of time looking at: is it better for central government to put that funding in through just a simple and reasonably blunt instrument, like a flat fee per household, or is it better to actually work with partners around figuring out how to get best value for money and to ensure that that infrastructure funding is spent? This is, of course, the way in which we’re administering the $1 billion fund that we have set up to work, to finally put, for the first time since the 1970s, core Government infrastructure funding into local councils and local communities. I can tell the House that if you look across at some places, cost is as low as $3,000 per house. Other places cost as much as $82,000 per house, in places where we haven’t seen infrastructure investment for decades, and that’s why as a Government we’ve committed to doing this in the more sophisticated way that actually looks at each project on its merits.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I really appreciate that answer from the Minister, but I don’t think it addressed the question.

SPEAKER: I believe it did.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Well, my question was about a specific proposal—

SPEAKER: No, I’m not arguing with you. It’s not an invitation to debate it. It’s been addressed. Have you got another question?

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does she agree that enabling development of community services through mixed-use zoning such as doctors, dairies, schools, and retail, where intensified development occurs, would build on the benefits of higher density housing in existing urban areas?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I do agree that we have to look at the cost of the social infrastructure that goes along with any new development, whether that be greenfield or brownfield. One of the things that we do know in greenfield development is that those costs are even higher because they don’t exist, unlike in brownfield development. So those numbers that I gave the member in the answer to the primary question didn’t include the cost of social infrastructure like education and health; that is additional to the numbers I gave in my primary answer.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is she confident the Kāinga Ora build programme is providing quality density in existing urban areas, and, if so, why did her Government not commit to longer-term funding for public housing in the most recent Budget?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: This year’s Budget, I’m incredibly proud to say, builds on what we have done over our now six Budgets, and that is put a baseline increase for funding for more public houses. We will have added 21,000 places and baselined the funding for that. We have done that over the six years we’ve been in Government, and that represents the largest increase in public housing since the 1970s. I am incredibly proud of that. What it will take is for each and every political party at this upcoming election to say, in terms of operational funding, what they are willing to put in to further fund the increase of social housing. The public will judge us on our record and see that we have done the most of any Government in decades.

Question No. 9—Māori Development

9. to the Minister for Māori Development: How does Budget 2023 invest in whānau, whare, and whakapapa for Māori right across the country?

Budget 2023 continues this Government’s investment in areas like whānau, whare, and whakapapa, all of which supports the Government’s plans to address the cost of living. Over the past week, myself, along with other Labour Māori ministerial colleagues, travelled the length of the country from Moerewa in the north to Christchurch, sharing with them Whānau Budget 2023. The theme for this year’s Māori budget has centred around te rito o te harakeke or putting whānau at the centre of everything we do. We’ve seen close to $900 million—which was about 17 percent of the new spend—going to a number of areas building on the success of previous Labour Budgets and highlighting this Government’s particular focus on supporting Māori. We continue to put our best foot forward for our whānau with the biggest Māori caucus in this Parliament’s history and eight Māori Ministers ensuring whānau voices are heard and seen clearly at the decision-making table.

Tāmati Coffey: What are some of the highlights from Budget 2023 for Māori?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Many—on top of the announcements already mentioned, such as scrapping the $5 prescription fee and free public transport for our young people, Budget 2023 has secured the following targeted wins for Te Ao Māori: extra funding to build and repair more homes, $295 million in total; boost for Te Matatini and ensuring Matariki is funded into the future, $34 million for Te Matatini and $18 million for Matariki; more funding for Whānau Ora to provide more services, $168 million; increased funding for hauora providers, iwi-Māori partnership boards, rongoā practitioners; and more prevention funding, $132 million; more support in Māori education for kura, kaiako, and ākonga across the country, $225 million; more funding to strengthen Māori media, $51 million. I want to acknowledge my ministerial colleagues and particularly our Māori caucus for their support on the road show.

Tāmati Coffey: How is Budget 2023 specifically supporting Māori into housing and how will this build on actions already taken by the Government?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Since the launch of Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga in October 2021, we’ve made significant inroads into accelerating Māori-led housing supply. We are on track to deliver 1,018 homes by June 2025. This is a result of the largest investment ever—ever—in Māori housing: $730 million in 2021. That’s why I’m pleased that our Government is delivering on its ongoing commitment and the momentum made to improve housing outcomes for Māori in the Budget with a $295 million investment in Māori-led housing delivery programmes such as the Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga programme. It’s going so well, and I want to thank the Minister Megan Woods for her great support. And of that, $150 million will be provided to Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga to provide an additional 322 homes and $10 million for capability-building for the Māori housing provider sector. It doesn’t stop there; $50 million will be provided to Te Puni Kōkiri.

SPEAKER: It does stop there actually. Far too long.

David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. Speakers have long held that members should not read their speeches. I noticed the Minister was reading his speech as he tried to answer the question, and I wondered if the rule would apply to Ministers reading out answers that they can’t remember or commit to memory and speak off the cuff about it.

SPEAKER: Albeit an out of order point of order, I do take the point.

Tāmati Coffey: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: I’m not sure if he deserves another question. We’ll go somewhere else.

Hon Meka Whaitiri: To the Minister: how does $850 million of Māori-targeted money from an allocation of $175 billion in Budget 2023 meet the inequity goals of this Government?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: This funding is new funding. We are talking about 17 percent of the new spend. There’s only 5 to 10 percent of Māori providers, and yet we have got 17 percent of the new spend.

Rawiri Waititi: No! Seventeen percent?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: You need to do your numbers, Mr Waititi. It’s $5 billion—$5 billion was the new spend, 5 to 10 percent Māori providers, 17 percent of the new spend. The other Māori will get what they need through the universal spend. You need to talk to your president.

Hon Meka Whaitiri: Does he agree with the view that the universal options only arise because the “for Māori, by Māori” option is gravely underfunded?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The by Māori, for Māori option has increased substantially under this Government. I’d ask that member to talk to the Māori Party president, John Tamihere, who was ecstatic about the by Māori, for Māori budget. And I’ll quote him—I’ll read this for Mr Seymour—he said, “A very, very good budget. Well done Māori Labour caucus, by Māori, for Māori strategies are the way to go and no other mainstream Government has performed like this mainstream Government and this Māori Labour caucus”.

Rawiri Waititi: Can the Minister tell me how he worked out his arithmetic of $180 million making up 17 percent of $176 billion?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Again, sadly, that member is not looking at the new spend. For that member’s sake, the new spend was just under $5 billion—just under $5 billion. The Māori take on that was $895 million. That’s just over 17 percent. I’d be happy to meet with the member after this to explain the numbers of the Budget. Talk to your Māori Party president.

Question No. 10—Education

10. to the Associate Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement regarding the early childhood education sector’s reaction to the conditions attached to the 20 hours’ free funding, “I can’t explain why they think it’s unaffordable”, when an open letter representing three-quarters of the ECE sector was sent to her office explaining it to her?

I stand by my whole statement: “I can’t explain why they think it’s unaffordable, that would be up to each individual centre as to how they run their own business.” What I can explain is that Budget 2023 delivers a minimum of an 80 percent increase to the current funding rate for children two and over in ECE. This is specifically to help centres adopt and implement the policy.

Penny Simmonds: So is the early childhood sector wrong when they say that the criteria attached to the Government’s flagship policy will increase childcare fees for families and negatively impact on the viability of centres with the risk of more centres closing, and, if so, why?

Hon JO LUXTON: To the second part of the question: centres close for a range of reasons, including population growth. And it is important to note that this is an opt-in subsidy which centres do not have to offer to parents. It doesn’t come into effect until March of next year, so there is plenty of time to work with the sector.

Penny Simmonds: So is the Minister concerned that 96 early childhood providers have closed between January and May this year, and does she believe the Budget policy announcement will increase or decrease the number of providers closing?

Hon JO LUXTON: In response to the first part of the question, as I said in my previous answers, centres close and open for a variety of reasons, including population changes in an area.

Penny Simmonds: Who is correct: the Minister, who claims the Government’s flagship policy is workable, or the ECE sector who say, “Quality ECE will be put back 50 years”?

Hon JO LUXTON: What I will say is that this is not a new policy. The subsidy has been in place for three- to five-year-olds for more than a decade. So we know it can work because history tells us so. [Interruption.]

SPEAKER: Order!

Penny Simmonds: Does the Minister agree with the ECE sector, who say they were, “expecting a Ferrari and got given a lemon” that will increase fees for families, and will she concede that the Budget’s flagship policy should go back to Minister Tinetti’s whiteboard?

Hon JO LUXTON: The Government’s ECE package in Budget 2023 is designed with families front of mind and aims to take the pressure off the cost of living by removing barriers to services.

Question No. 11—Digital Economy and Communications

11. to the Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications: How is the Government supporting the game development sector?

Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. This Government is committed to supporting the growth of our game development sector by investing in our digital and technical sectors, and supporting Kiwis into good tech jobs. Through Budget 2023, we are introducing a new rebate scheme for game development studios. This will provide a boost for gaming studios to flourish and grow right here in New Zealand. The scheme, which will see eligible studios receiving up to a 20 percent rebate, will go a long way to ensure New Zealand remains a great place. This is an exciting sector to operate in and will help create the New Zealand that we want to see in our future: a high-skill, high-wage, resilient, and sustainable future for New Zealand.

Naisi Chen: Why is this investment needed?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The game development sector is a creator of high-skill, high-wage jobs right here in New Zealand. This Government is very proud to support its further growth and development. This sector has been rapidly growing and has significantly contributed to lifting New Zealand’s productivity and wealth. In 2022, it brought in more than $400 million in revenue, with over 96 percent of this being in weightless exports. As part of the digital technologies industry, the game development sector aligns with our vision for a low-emissions, high-wage economy, and we are committed to making the best investments possible for the future of our economy.

Naisi Chen: How will this scheme work?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The 20 percent rebate will be available to all game development studios who meet a minimum spend of $250,000 per annum. The threshold will enable studios to receive up to $3 million in a rebate funding. It’s great news that this scheme will be backdated to 1 April 2023. That means businesses will already be eligible to receive this much-needed support. This scheme will provide an incentive to gaming studios to continue to build and develop right here in New Zealand.

Naisi Chen: What feedback has the Minister seen on the announcement?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Heaps. I’ve had great feedback, both in person and through the media. New Zealand Game Developers Association chairwoman Chelsea Rapp has said, “I’m elated. It’s such a relief to see the Government has heard our concerns.” The chief executive of RocketWerkz, Stephen Knightly, has said, “It’s great to hear the Government is taking tangible action to support not only interactive games, but also the wider digital economy too.” BusinessNZ CEO Kirk Hope has said, “This attention to an emerging industry is welcome and it signals New Zealand is in a competitive space for development.” I’m also hearing stories directly from stakeholders in the sector that this announcement is going to make a strong, tangible difference to their business.

Question No. 12—Police

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

I stand by my full statement that: “It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer with a Government on track to deliver 1,800 extra police.”

Chris Baillie: Does she believe police feel safer, given that there’s been a 300 percent increase in assaults against police since 2017, and, if police don’t feel safe, how can ordinary New Zealanders?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Assaults on front-line police are absolutely unacceptable, and that is exactly why this Government has invested in the Tactical Response Model (TRM). This has been trialled in areas and different districts and now has been funded to be rolled out right across New Zealand. What the TRM delivers is a combination of intelligence and extra kit to make sure police are deployed and fully equipped to respond to higher risk in individual circumstances.

Chris Baillie: Does she believe that victims feel safer, considering there has been a 121 percent increase in serious assaults resulting in injury since 2017?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I am never happy to see that there is an increase in victims of crime. That is why we continue to invest in important initiatives like Te Aorerekura, led by Marama Davidson, which enables greater investment in our communities to reduce family harm so that young people do not grow up in homes exposed to high levels of family harm and go on to cause other issues later in life. It’s important we invest 10 years from now to see the problems that we are seeing presenting here today in New Zealand.

Chris Baillie: Does she believe women feel safer, considering there was a 19 percent increase in aggravated sexual assaults between 2017 and 2022?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: It is not acceptable that there has been an increase in assaults on women. That is why we continue to invest, unlike the potential of a “coalition of cuts”, which would do what has happened in the previous instances where people have had services cut and enabled those responses not to kick in and help people who need it.

Chris Baillie: Isn’t it the case that when she says she feels safe, it’s because she’s in the back of a Crown limo, while New Zealanders who are going about their daily lives are being terrorised by thugs and don’t feel safe?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: No.