Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

In the Crown accounts for the nine months to the end of March released this week, the operating balance before gains and losses—or OBEGAL—recorded a deficit of $3.4 billion. This was $2.5 billion higher than had been forecast in December’s Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update. Compared with the same period a year ago, the deficit for nine months to March 2023 was lower by $4.7 billion. We know that 2023 is going to be a challenging year for the global economy, and we are not immune in terms of New Zealand as to what happens overseas. The Government’s accounts will be affected as the economy cools, and we are doing our bit to both restrain spending and responsibly manage our finances while looking after New Zealanders. The upcoming Budget has required tough choices as we respond to the deteriorating economic conditions. The Government will take a balanced approach that is responsible and looks after those who are the most affected by changing economic conditions and recent weather events. I’m glad this popular question is back in the House.

Hon Dr David Clark: What else did the report say about the impact of the economy on the Government’s books?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Core Crown tax revenue was 2.7 percent below forecast at $83.6 billion. This was mainly due to lower than forecast GST returns and corporate tax revenue. However, this was partly offset by core Crown expenses being 0.8 percent below forecast, at $92.5 billion, with lower core Government expenses, COVID-related health expenses, social security, and welfare expenses all being lower.

Hon Dr David Clark: What did the report say about the Government’s debt position and its impact on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Net debt was 19.1 percent of GDP, below the forecast of 20.4 percent of GDP, mainly due to market conditions affecting the financial portfolio of the New Zealand super fund and ACC. Our debt levels are among the lowest in the OECD and well below the Government debt ceiling of 30 percent of GDP. This ensures that we are well positioned to deal with the impacts of Cyclone Gabrielle and any other future economic shocks.

Hon Dr David Clark: What other reports has the Minister seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: An extremely good question. Statistics New Zealand has reported that the New Zealand Activity Index, which is a broad and timelier measure of activity in the economy, rose 1.3 percent in the March quarter from the previous period a year ago. Activity indicators were up for electronic card transaction activity, heavy and light traffic movements, but had eased in terms of manufacturing activity, grid demand, and job advertisements. As I’ve said previously, New Zealand starts in a position of strength to face the challenges ahead. We have unemployment near record lows, and public debt levels well below those of other countries that we compare ourselves to. We know many New Zealanders are doing it tough, but the Government is focused on working hard to support them in the here and now while also investing in the public services and infrastructure that we need to grow our economy sustainably.

Nicola Willis: As he looked at the deteriorating Crown accounts this week, did he have a moment of reflection to think, “If only we had been more prudent last year and not spent so recklessly, then I would have room to deliver tax relief and respond to the cyclone this year.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I always take time to reflect when I receive the Crown accounts and work my way through them. And one of my reflections, on reading this one, was that this would be a terrible time to introduce large-scale tax cuts as the National Party would do.

Nicola Willis: When did he or his officials last meet with the international credit rating agencies, and how concerned is he that, given his fiscal blowouts, they will downgrade New Zealand’s credit rating, adding even more pressure to the cost of borrowing for New Zealanders?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We meet annually with the credit rating agencies, and so we did that last year and we will do that this year. I am confident that the New Zealand economy is resilient and robust. Despite the National Party’s desire to be relentlessly negative, to talk down New Zealand and talk down our economy, I have a great deal of confidence in New Zealanders and the resilience of our economy.

Question No. 2—Justice

2. to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by her statement that she is taking a “victim-centric” approach to justice, and is this victim-centric approach compatible with the Government’s justice policies?

Yes, which is why, on 21 April, the Government announced a series of practical changes to give victims more rights and support in the justice system. The package includes legislative changes regarding penalties for sexual violence against children, litigation abuse, and family proceedings, and giving greater input to victims of sexual violence around name suppression decisions, three pilot programmes to improve safety and help victims of serious crime navigate the court system, strengthened support for child victims of sexual violence, and improving victims’ views being provided in bail decisions. In addition, $3 million in funding for victim support and $2.2 million in additional funding will be provided to the Victim Assistance Scheme.

Nicole McKee: Does she believe that scrapping longer sentences for repeat violent and sexual offenders, as the Government did when it got rid of the three-strikes legislation, is consistent with taking a victim-centric approach to justice?

Hon DAVID PARKER: There is no evidence that three-strikes legislation worked. One of the more shameful examples of its application was in respect of someone who was challenged intellectually but, none the less, felt the effects of three-strikes law in a way that was probably wrong and unjust. And on this side of the House, we believe that it is important that perpetrators of serious crime are held to account and were appropriately imprisoned, but those sentencing decisions should be left to the courts.

Nicole McKee: How can she defend the Government’s policy to not build any more prisons, when there has been a 121 percent increase in serious assault victimisations resulting in injury since January 2017, with the number of victimisations increasing year on year to December 2022?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I think it was the Minister of Finance in the last National-ACT Government—and a former Prime Minister—who said that New Zealand’s then penal policy was a fiscal and moral failure, and parties that would take us back to that fiscal and moral failure would be making a mistake and would not be protecting New Zealanders from harm.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can this Government claim to be victim-centric when National revealed more strangulation offenders than victims were helped by the $20 million strangulation initiative in Budget 2020?

Hon DAVID PARKER: That statistic is, of course, no surprise at all to anyone that thinks about the fact that it’s a new offence.

Nicole McKee: How can she reconcile the Government’s goal to reduce the prison population by 30 percent with her victim-centric approach, and what message does this send to the victims?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The Government’s had no such target.

Nicole McKee: Does she believe that the Government’s first job is to keep law abiding New Zealanders safe from criminals, and, if so, will she support ACT’s policy to invest in building an additional 500-bed prison to ensure—

Hon Marama Davidson: That’s how to keep people in danger.

SPEAKER: Order! The Hon Marama Davidson will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Marama Davidson: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: I’ll ask you to ask the question again.

Nicole McKee: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does she believe that the Government’s first job is to keep law abiding New Zealanders safe from criminals, and, if so, will she support ACT’s policy to invest in building an additional 500-bed—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Ah, sorry. The Hon Marama Davidson will leave the Chamber.

Hon Marama Davidson: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Now please.

Hon Marama Davidson: I thought we were allowed to—

SPEAKER: Members have the right to ask questions—I remind the House that.

Hon Marama Davidson withdrew from the Chamber.

Nicole McKee: Should I start again, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Yes, please.

Nicole McKee: Does she believe that the Government’s first job is to keep law abiding New Zealanders safe from criminals, and, if so, will she support ACT’s policy to invest in building an additional 500-bed prison to ensure there is sufficient capacity for dangerous criminals to be kept from continually harming our communities and from creating more victims?

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

Question No. 3—Energy and Resources

3. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What is the Government doing to improve the energy efficiency of New Zealand homes?

): Since its launch in 2018, the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme has played a key role in our Government’s action to lower power bills and make homes healthier for New Zealanders and their families. Low-income families, young children, and older Kiwis are especially vulnerable to the impacts of living in cold, damp homes. Since coming into Government, we have now completed more than 110,000 installations of insulation and efficient heat sources.

Glen Bennett: What has the Government’s Warmer Kiwi Homes programme achieved to date?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Through more than 110,000 upgrades delivered since 2018, Warmer Kiwi Homes is directly assisting households to manage cost of living pressures by offering grants of 80 percent of the cost of insulation, and up to 80 percent of the cost of a heater. This made it far more affordable and accessible for homeowners to make their homes warm, dry, and healthy, and reduce their spend on power bills. Households are not only more efficient; homeowners report an overwhelming increase in comfort and satisfaction with their homes.

Glen Bennett: What energy-efficiency benefits does the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme provide?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Motu’s independent review of Warmer Kiwi Homes found that the programme was delivering better outcomes, with homes being, on average, 2 degrees Celsius warmer, 89 percent of homeowners reporting less condensation on windows, and around half of homeowners noticing a reduction in dampness. Not only were homes warmer and drier but they’re also more energy-efficient. People and homes upgraded through the programme experienced an electricity reduction of 16 percent through the winter months, supporting households to spend less on their power bills.

Glen Bennett: What health benefits does the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme provide?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Warmer Kiwi Homes also improves health outcomes for New Zealanders, contributing to fewer doctors visits and hospitalisations being required, which research finds equates to over $15 million per year saved in avoided hospital costs.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

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

Yes, particularly this Government’s $300 million boost to the New Zealand Green Investment Finance fund to accelerate the uptake of low-emissions technology and mobilise private sector capital into new businesses and jobs. Green Investment Finance has invested in electric vehicle charging infrastructure, solar-powered projects, and electric buses, reducing emissions by up to 710,000 tonnes. These investments will generate returns that can be recycled into other projects.

Christopher Luxon: Is it fair that someone on the average wage is paying $1,600 more in income tax because of bracket creep, when their real wages have actually gone backwards because of his Government’s economic mismanagement?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course, I note that, overall, real wages have been trending upwards under this Government. The member may choose to pick a particular point in time, and of course we acknowledge that the current inflationary environment is putting families under pressure. That is exactly why the Budget is focused on—it is a no-frills Budget, focused very much on the issues that are of concern to New Zealanders.

Christopher Luxon: Why has he inflation-adjusted benefits, inflation-adjusted New Zealand super, and inflation-adjusted the minimum wage but refuses to inflation-adjust income tax brackets for hard-working, middle-income Kiwis?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’ve never said that we wouldn’t make adjustments, in time, to income tax brackets. I note that people move up income tax brackets because their incomes are increasing, and inflation has led to a driving up of New Zealanders’ incomes because of rising wages. I note they’ve risen much faster under this Government than under the last National Government.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister understand that if your incomes are rising due to inflation and so is the cost of things you’re buying, you can’t actually buy more and you’re no better off?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I note the longer-term trend under this Government is that wages have been rising ahead of inflation. I do note that we are currently in an environment which is very challenging for New Zealanders.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister understand that after-tax wages last year rose 6.2 percent versus inflation of 7.2 percent, so the hard-working people who pay the taxes, who pay the bills for this place, actually fell behind by 1 percent last year, and, if so, what’s he going to do about it?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member might like to take a look at the latest statistics and, of course, there will be more coming. At any given point in time, there will be fluctuation between those two numbers, but if you look at the longer-term trend, this Government’s track record stacks up very well.

Christopher Luxon: So when he said income tax thresholds will need to be adjusted for inflation, but just not yet, how much inflation will be enough before he will finally give Kiwis a break?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I note that adjusting tax brackets right now has the potential to keep inflation higher for longer. Pumping the sort of money into the economy that National’s tax plan would do would ultimately result in higher inflation for longer. It would mean Kiwi households paying higher interest bills on their mortgage for longer.

Christopher Luxon: So when he just said he was ruling out tax relief because it has the potential to be inflationary, has he considered choosing tax relief over evermore wasteful Government spending, given his Government is already spending an extra $1 billion each and every week?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As has already been well noted by economists—reputable economists—actually, the Government has been placing downwards pressure on the overall level of Government spending, and that will have a flow-on effect to broader economic measures.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by his Government’s refusal to support a ban or moratorium on seabed mining in our own domestic waters, despite his Government backing a conditional moratorium in international waters?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I absolutely endorse the decision taken by the select committee to hold an inquiry on those matters so that we can make sure that all of the issues and the potential ramifications of decisions in this space are properly canvassed.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is his response to the more than 20 hapū, iwi, and environmental NGOs who have sent him an open letter, and the 40,000 who signed a petition calling on him to support my member’s bill and ban seabed mining?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I would encourage them to channel their energies and efforts into submitting to the select committee.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why is he kicking the can on seabed mining to a select committee inquiry when seabed mining applications have been rejected by the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think the select committee inquiry is a good way to canvass all of the relevant issues, including all of the consequences of potential decisions that we could take in this space.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can you refuse to support this bill to enable it to be debated at select committee when seabed mining has been consistently rejected by all the courts in Aotearoa, by tangata whenua, coastal communities, environmental groups, farmers, fishing interests, and the public at large?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because I think the select committee inquiry is actually a good way of dealing with those issues.

Christopher Luxon: Isn’t the real reason he won’t deliver tax relief and is considering a capital gains tax and an inheritance tax and a wealth tax because his Government is totally addicted to spending and taxpayers are paying the price of that addiction?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member is just making things up. In fact, I have specifically—

SPEAKER: The Prime Minister well knows he cannot make that sort of statement about any member. I will say that the question—for which I counted at least five assertions and three legs—is probably going to generate such a response. I think we’ll leave it there, eh.

Christopher Luxon: Is it the case that he wants a capital gains tax but he won’t tell the public, or is it that his Ministers want a capital gains tax but he won’t tell them no?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It is the case that I have made a commitment to honour the commitments we made in 2020 at the general election, because, unlike the previous Government, we won’t say we won’t do something before an election only to do it after the election, as they did when they specifically ruled out increasing GST and then went ahead and did it anyway.

Christopher Luxon: So will he rule out a capital gains tax while he’s Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member needs to get some new material. He asked me this question yesterday, and I’ll give him exactly the same answer, which is our tax policy will be very clear before the election.

Question No. 5—Housing (Māori Housing)

5. to the Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing): What progress has the Government made towards delivery of housing for Māori?

When we came into Government, the housing challenges whānau Māori were facing were incredibly significant. As a Government, we took action and we set ambitious goals. So I am proud to stand here today and advise the House that we are delivering. Through the Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga programme, we have contracted and approved 1,018 homes for delivery, and at the end of March 2023, of the 1,000 homes to be delivered, we have approved and commenced building 1,018. Of the 700 homes for repairs and maintenance, we have approved and delivered up to 415 across the motu, and of the 2,700 sites requiring infrastructure support, we have approved up to 1,615.

Soraya Peke-Mason: How does partnership with Māori provide better housing outcomes for whānau?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Partnership is always incredibly important, as the House knows, and this Government has heard loud and clear that iwi, hapū, and other Māori entities are in a position to drive locally led solutions. All that is needed from central government is to enable this shift to occur. The value of the partnerships with Māori is driven by the Government acknowledging that it cannot achieve these housing outcomes on its own. Through testing one of the pathways with iwi-led prototypes, we can drive better housing outcomes for whānau. We can do this through delivering Māori housing to a scale and at a pace that has never been achieved before and taking a by Māori, for Māori approach to support and enable iwi and Māori to succeed through partnership and co-design.

Soraya Peke-Mason: How are these homes creating transformational change for whānau?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Increasing the number of affordable housing for whānau Māori will also support other indicators of whānau wellbeing, including proximity to their marae and, for many returning to their ancestral whenua, the chance to reconnect with wider whānau. In Te Tairāwhiti, through Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga, iwi are prototyping a rent-to-own housing delivery model on whenua Māori at pace and scale. The key to their housing programme is that whānau who will receive their new-build homes must undertake a housing literacy course to learn how to look after their home, commit and attend a te reo Māori course, and commit to support marae and community events. In this approach, the housing delivery is a key piece that drives transformational change for whānau.

Soraya Peke-Mason: How is the Government’s investment in the delivery of Māori housing supporting efforts to respond to recent weather events?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Through established place-based partnerships and funding provided by Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga, Kānoa, and iwi-funding relationships, iwi have been able to drive a quick response to the recent weather events. In 2022, Toitu Tairawhiti Housing Limited and Kānoa built a construction facility in Gisborne, through a joint venture with an established off-site manufacturing firm, to accelerate the delivery of housing in Gisborne and the wider East Coast. When the recent extreme weather hit, the construction facility, supported by the Gisborne community, was in a ready position to build temporary cabins for displaced whānau quickly. That site is now building at pace and starting to transport cabins to various sites. The Māori housing strategy is just going so well, and I want to compliment all our Ministers, and particularly Minister Megan Woods, who’s been leading it for us. Kia ora.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions on tax?

Yes, in the context in which they were made and undertaken.

Nicola Willis: Has he considered that a responsible, non-inflationary way to provide working Kiwis tax reduction would be to pay for it by stopping wasteful Government spending?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We are always taking a look at how we can reprioritise and save money, and the Prime Minister’s already given a number of examples of that to this point. It is always important when looking at the balance of a Budget to be able to say how you’ll pay for the things that you want to do.

Nicola Willis: Why won’t he reduce spending on consultants, comms advisers, and pet projects to allow New Zealanders to keep more of what they earn?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, it’s interesting the member raises that, because while I—and we’ve already stated in the House that we do want to see spending on consultants and contractors come down. The member needs to answer a fairly basic mathematical question: how it is that the $400 million she has identified, which has already now been used to pay for two National policies, will somehow or other fund ongoing costs of billions of dollars of tax cuts. It doesn’t add up.

Nicola Willis: When he rules out significant tax reduction in this Budget, does he consider that inflation adjusting tax thresholds or introducing a tax-free threshold would be significant?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Prime Minister has indicated in his pre-Budget speech that the Budget will not contain major tax reform. In any Budget, it is important to make sure that the numbers do add up, that you can explain how you pay for things—and on this side of the House, we make sure that we can do that. All parties at the election will be judged on whether they can do that.

Nicola Willis: Can he explain why he is struggling to understand how the Government could deliver $1.8 billion of tax relief, yet he very happily found more than $9 billion in last year’s Budget to add to the operating allowance?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Firstly, tax cuts, and the tax cuts that the member is promoting, will be ongoing. They are always there; they are baked in. On this side of the House, we have continued to prioritise investment into health, investment into housing, investment into education, investment into supporting our lowest-income New Zealanders. This is not some zero-sum game for the member. If the member wants to propose those tax cuts, she has to explain what programmes will be cut.

Nicola Willis: Why is it that under his reign as finance Minister, the Government is spending $52 billion more every year—a 69 percent increase—and yet we still have deteriorating results in our health services, our education services, and a ram raid every day?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government is extremely proud of the record that we have had in making sure that unemployment is at record low levels. We have been fiscally responsible to the point that our debt levels continue to be among the lowest with countries that we compare ourselves to. Through this period of time that we’ve been in Government, we’ve also had to deal with the COVID pandemic, a period of time where we did spend money to make sure that New Zealanders stayed alive and to make sure that New Zealanders stayed in their jobs. During that period of time, the National Party constantly called for us to spend more money during that period of time. I’m proud of what we have done through difficult times, and we will continue to support New Zealanders through difficult times.

Question No. 7—Foreign Affairs

7. to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: How does the early entry into force of the free-trade agreement between New Zealand and the United Kingdom build on the enduring relationship between the UK and New Zealand?

There’s significant positive momentum across the relationship between New Zealand and the United Kingdom. This includes trade and economic cooperation, people-to-people exchanges, progress in science and technology, collaboration in defence and security, joint efforts in addressing climate change, and engagement in the Pacific region. New Zealand continues to pursue the important benefits of the global free-trade agenda, especially in the face of changes such as rising cost of living, protectionist tendencies, and vulnerabilities in supply chains. The early entry into force of the UK free-trade agreement (FTA) on 31 May is welcomed, and we want to ensure that New Zealanders are fully capable and able to capitalise on the opportunities of the agreement.

Ibrahim Omer: How does this agreement contribute to New Zealand’s resilience and growth?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: We know that one in four New Zealanders’ jobs depend on trade, which are enhanced by strong bilateral relationships. This gold standard FTA between New Zealand and the UK will support economic recovery and growth. Notably, it will continue to reinforce an already strong relationship by expanding market access, boosting goods exports, generating GDP growth, reducing costs for exporters, and creating job opportunities. The FTA provides a framework for enhanced relations that are positive for New Zealand exporters and economic growth as we navigate the years ahead.

Ibrahim Omer: What are the environmental commitments included in the agreement, and their significance?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: One of the reasons why we refer to the UK FTA as gold standard is the significance of the environmental commitments and the importance of balancing economic development with environmental protection. In doing so, New Zealand and the UK demonstrate a mutual commitment to sustainable trade practices and their responsibility to address global environmental challenges. The inclusion of these commitments reflects a broader shift towards more environmentally conscious trade agreements. It sets positive examples for future trade relationships. It’s evidenced with New Zealand achieving a number one ranking in last year’s Sustainable Trade Index.

Ibrahim Omer: How does the agreement strengthen the relationship between Māori and the British Crown?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: There is an indigenous chapter in this particular agreement, and it’s the first of its kind. It’s called the Māori Trade and Economic Cooperation chapter. It acknowledges the unique relationship between Māori and the British Crown and provides a framework for cooperation that respects and recognises Māori interests. It ensures that Māori perspectives, culture, and economic aspirations are considered in the context of the trade agreement, promoting inclusivity, and recognising the importance of indigenous rights and partnerships in international trade. This is groundbreaking, to secure indigenous recognition in an FTA. We will continue to learn, prosper from, and innovate this approach.

Question No. 8—Education

8. to the Minister of Education: Why didn’t she at the earliest possible opportunity correct her answer on 22 February where she stated, “I can categorically tell that member that the Ministry of Education is responsible for the data. I have no say over that”, given she stated yesterday that “my staff verbally informed me after question time on 22 February that members of my staff had been in correspondence with the Ministry of Education regarding the timing of term 3 attendance data release”, and why did her staff ask the ministry to release the attendance data after her attendance announcement?

To the first part of the question, because even with that knowledge, I stood by my answers in the House on 22 February that attendance is the responsibility of the Ministry of Education. I did not sign out the data or approve the release date. To the second part of the question, a key purpose of why the Government has increased the frequency of attendance data reporting is to raise awareness about the importance of attendance. It wouldn’t have been uncommon for the ministry, in consultation with their Minister’s office, to time the release to be able to promote a positive message about this turning around.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. In relation to the second part of the primary question, the Minister gave an interesting commentary about the importance of attendance data, but did not address the question about why her staff asked the ministry to release the data when it did.

Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker—I mean, I’d hesitate to say something which is in your domain. But the full answer—while the member quoted the second part of the Minister’s answer, she definitely addressed the question in the final part of the answer.

SPEAKER: I’m not sure that the Minister has, so I’m going to give Erica Stanford two extra questions.

Erica Stanford: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In relation to the first part of the answer she just gave, does she understand that she is responsible for the actions of the staff in her office, and when they informed her that they had, in fact, been involved in the timing of the release of the data, why did she not immediately come down to the House and correct her answer?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I stand by the first part of my answer, which is that even with the knowledge, I stood by my answers in the House on 22 February. That attendance data is the responsibility of the Ministry of Education. I did not sign out the data or approve the release date.

Erica Stanford: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was around does she understand that she is responsible for the actions of her staff, and, if so, why didn’t she correct her answer—and none of that was addressed.

Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. Questions framed with does somebody understand something are very, very open, and the member gave an answer about her understanding.

SPEAKER: I don’t think I can help the member any more than the two extra questions that I’ve given. It’s the way, you know, you—I suggest asking a question that has just one leg to it—one part.

Erica Stanford: Is the Minister of Education responsible for the actions of her staff when they emailed the Ministry of Education to delay the release of the attendance data?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I do take responsibility for the actions of my staff.

Erica Stanford: In light of that answer, why is it that the Minister of Education, being responsible for the actions of her staff, did not come down to the House and correct the answer to her question when they told her that they had, in fact, been involved in the release of the data?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Because at the time, I felt that my answer still stood and was correct.

Erica Stanford: Wasn’t her announcement yesterday, asking the Ministry of Education to produce a schedule of when attendance data would be released, a way of her directing blame to the Ministry of Education when emails show it was her office that determined the release date of the term 3 data to coincide with her political announcement?

Hon JAN TINETTI: No.

Erica Stanford: Why, then, is she now calling for a release of the timetable from the Ministry of Education when a timetable was already provided to her on 4 November, which clearly sets out the dates for release of attendance data for terms 3, 4, and 1?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I have asked the Ministry of Education to consider putting those dates on to the website.

Erica Stanford: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a briefing from 4 November, released to me under the Official Information Act, from the Ministry of Education containing that schedule of release dates.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It may be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Erica Stanford: Whose authority were her staff acting on when they sent an email on 9 February to the Ministry of Education, stating that “FYI, The Minister’s office are looking to potentially release the Term 3 attendance data early next week.”, when the Ministry of Education schedule from 4 November was clear about when they wanted to release the data prior to the new year?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I was unaware of that email when I came to the House on 22 February.

Erica Stanford: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t believe that my question was addressed around whose authority they were acting under.

Hon JAN TINETTI: I don’t know. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: You’re lucky I wasn’t on my feet. Well, it’s now answered. Have you got any more supplementaries? Thank you

Question No. 9—Police

9. to the Minister of Police: What progress has been made on ensuring Police constabulary staff is more representative of New Zealand’s population?

I was incredibly proud to attend last week’s graduation of Police Wing 365, which marks the significant milestone of 1,000 policewomen added to our police service since 2017. The number of front-line women has increased almost threefold, as fast as overall numbers, since we came to office. This is a fantastic achievement. As well as being committed to delivering 1,800 more police, we’ve been committed to ensuring our front line is more representative of the community it serves. This has meant a total increase of 57 percent front-line women.

Vanushi Walters: What other improvements have been made to ensure our front line better represents our communities?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: It’s not just an increase in policewomen that is helping our front line better represent the communities they serve; there’s also been significant growth in ethnic diversity in our police service as well. Since 2017, the number of sworn Māori policewomen has grown by 39 percent; Pasifika, 77 percent; and the number of Asian policewomen has grown by 152 percent. Diversity on our front line is not only a “nice-to-have”; it is a must. We know our communities respond better when they see themselves in their police service.

Vanushi Walters: How are policewomen represented across the organisation?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: It’s not just in new female recruits that are graduating that it’s improving; the representation continues. There has been an increase in policewomen right across the ranks. The number of policewomen holding the rank of senior and senior sergeant is now just over 350, representing a near 50 percent increase. There’s also been a doubling of policewomen holding the rank of inspector or higher, and in the highest levels, including the Governor-General’s recent appointment last month of Tania Kura to the role of statutory deputy commissioner, the highest rank ever held by a policewoman in the history of our police service.

Vanushi Walters: How is the Government ensuring the police front line represents the growth in New Zealand’s population?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: As well as being representative of the diversity of our communities, it’s also important the police service is represented by the size of our population. Our commitment to 1,800 additional police officers is vital to ensure that we have a police service that is large enough and growing to keep our population safe. When we came into Government in 2017, there was one police officer for every 548 New Zealanders. Five years later, we have more police in our communities, and there is one police officer for every 488 New Zealanders. That’s a significant improvement. More front-line capability means police have the ability to respond and to resolve crime.

Question No. 10—Education

10. to the Minister of Education: Noa’ia ‘e mạuri. Does she consider the Government has done enough to address the concerns of teachers striking today?

This Government values the important contribution our teachers make, and we are working with the sector to address their concerns and lift the educational outcomes of our students. Following facilitated bargaining earlier this week, the Ministry of Education has made an offer for the secondary teachers’ collective agreement. Detailed information on the nature of the offer is available on the Ministry of Education website. I understand that the Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) executive are currently considering the offer, and that facilitated bargaining will resume if the offer is not accepted. Now, I’m not going to get ahead of those processes, and, therefore, do not believe it is in the public interest for me to pass judgment on whether the offer addressed the concerns raised in bargaining. For the area schools’ collective agreement, as I am not party to the bargaining, I cannot comment on the specifics of negotiations.

Teanau Tuiono: Does she agree with principals and teachers striking today that there is an urgent staffing crisis in teaching, with schools unable to recruit new positions?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I am advised that retention rates on the teaching workforce are broadly in line with historical retention rates of around 87 to 88 percent. There has, however, been an increased level of movement within the profession, rather than a net loss of teachers to the overall system. I do know that it is harder in some subjects, such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics subjects, and in different locations, to recruit teachers into those areas. That is why we put a $24 million package in place in September last year to address those shortages.

Teanau Tuiono: How does she respond to the PPTA staffing survey, which found that, on average, one in every four schools cancelled classes, and one in every two schools had to transfer courses or classes because of the teacher shortage?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I really very much welcome that survey, along with other data that we are collecting in this area. It does help inform where the pressure points are and helps inform our response to that, so that we can get this right. Our teachers are important. It is important that we do support them. It’s also important that they are supported to enable our young people to thrive.

Teanau Tuiono: Does she believe that it’s acceptable that some secondary school teachers are picking up second jobs on evenings and weekends to keep up with paying the bills, because their salaries haven’t increased in line with inflation?

Hon JAN TINETTI: To the first part of that question, no, I don’t think it’s acceptable that teachers are picking up second jobs because they are under so much pressure. Having said that, that is why I’m so adamant that we need to get to a settlement soon so that we are getting money in the pockets of our teachers, but also the conditions are being well sorted for them.

Teanau Tuiono: Does she acknowledge that area schools are facing particular difficulties recruiting staff, and, if so, what steps will she take to ensure that teachers in our rural communities are recognised for the work that they do?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Area schools form a unique part of the New Zealand education system, and it’s one that many of us—I would imagine all of us—in this House value in a great way, because of the rural communities that they tend to serve, but also the special nature of the communities that they serve as well. That is why bargaining is continuing at this point in time, and I am looking forward to, hopefully, getting bargaining settled very soon to make certain that we get the conditions right for those teachers.

Teanau Tuiono: Does the Minister accept that the teacher shortage crisis is directly related to teachers’ pay and conditions?

Hon JAN TINETTI: It’s a lot more complex than that.

Question No. 11—Broadcasting and Media

11. to the Minister for Broadcasting and Media: Does he stand by all of the Government’s statements and actions on New Zealand’s broadcasting and media sector?

Yes, absolutely.

Melissa Lee: Does the Minister agree with the comments of his Cabinet colleague the Hon Kiri Allan that “There is something within the organisation that will not and has not been able to keep Māori talent and that is a question that I think deserves some deep reflection.” in relation to RNZ?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Minister Allan’s comments were made in a private capacity. I won’t be commenting further on that. I’ve said before that I’m backing RNZ to deliver for New Zealand audiences, and what they do is entirely up to them. They are an independent Crown entity.

Melissa Lee: Is the failure by RNZ to release the full transcript of the comments by the Hon Kiri Allan, combined with the Minister’s office delaying an answer to an Official Information Act request by my office, a sign that “the most open, the most transparent Government that New Zealand has ever had” simply cannot handle the reality that it is interfering in the future of New Zealand’s public broadcasters?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, and I support RNZ’s right to make their own decisions.

Melissa Lee: Does this issue and the Ombudsman’s recent censure of the Minister in his Māori development portfolio that he is acting “contrary to law” mean there is a pattern of behaviour in this Government against releasing official information in the public interest?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, and that was a stupid question.

SPEAKER: I’ll give the member an extra question.

Melissa Lee: Thank you. Was there correspondence between his office and the office of the Hon Kiri Allan relating to the RNZ farewell transcript; if so, what was the nature of this?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No correspondence whatsoever.

Question No. 12—Environment

12. to the Minister for the Environment: How many farms utilised intensive winter grazing practices in 2022 on land with a slope of over 10 degrees, and what percentage of those farms, if any, are currently compliant with intensive winter grazing regulations?

Intensive winter grazing done poorly can result in many tonnes of sediment per hectare polluting waterways each year. An increase from a 10-degree slope to 15 degrees roughly doubles the sediment loss; an increase to 20 degrees triples it. I don’t have the number or percentage of farms conducting intensive winter grazing on slopes greater than 10 degrees, but I have been informed that farmers are increasingly avoiding slopes greater than 10 degrees. This has been confirmed to me by councils, farmers themselves, and media articles in Farmers Weekly. Regional councils are responsible for assessing compliance with the intensive winter grazing rules. I am, though, advised that those practices are improving as farmers change their practices to meet the permitted activity pathway. Councils and sector groups are working with farmers to continue this trend.

David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a question on notice about some very specific information the Minister’s had hours to find out. He says he doesn’t have it, but I think the House deserves an explanation of why the Minister was unable to get this information. He hasn’t actually said that.

SPEAKER: That’s the purpose of supplementary questions.

Mark Cameron: Can the Minister confirm that since 2021, his department has spent more than $7 million of taxpayer money to employ 12 FTEs—fulltime-equivalent employees—on freshwater farm plan regulations, yet it is still not complete; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Off the cuff, I can’t confirm or deny the exact number. It is correct that the farming sector, in order to avoid evermore prescriptive regulations controlling inappropriate practice, desired the development of farm environment plans, particularly freshwater farm plans. The Government has been advancing that in cooperation with regional councils and industry leader groups.

Mark Cameron: What would he say to farmers who, without freshwater farm plans, had to fork out an estimated average cost of $3,000 to obtain a resource consent in order to comply with intensive winter grazing standards during a time of near record high farm inflation?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I would say that when the member asked me a question on 1 September 2022; he asked me if I was concerned that there were going to be an estimated 10,000 resource consents necessary. I can advise the member that, so far, 311 have been applied for.

Mark Cameron: After backtracking on sowing dates and pugging depth regulations, will the Minister now also consider backtracking on intensive winter grazing slope requirements, or is he going to continue with these requirements, knowing that many farmers cannot be compliant with those?

Hon DAVID PARKER: In work that was coordinated with industry groups including Beef + Lamb, Federated Farmers, DairyNZ, plus the relevant regional councils, we did change the sowing date and pugging rule so as to make it more practical. I call that progress. In respect of the limitation on slope: no. As I’ve said, if we were to make it a permitted activity to have it at higher slopes, we would be doubling or tripling the loss of sediment, or could be, per hectare.