Oral Questions

1. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement, and I quote, “I think overall there are some New Zealanders who perhaps are not contributing their fair share”?

Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has he considered the Minister of Finance’s pre-Budget statement: “The Treasury has estimated the cost of asset damage from the floods and cyclone at between $9 billion and $14.5 billion, with half of that related to infrastructure owned by central or local government such as roads.”, and, if so, does he think that a higher effective tax rate on super-wealthy New Zealanders could allow Aotearoa to better recover from natural disasters?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree with the outcomes of our current tax system, which encourages the super-wealthy to accumulate assets such as property and hoard billions to the extent that 311 families in this country hold more wealth than the bottom 2.5 million New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Labour Party set out its tax policy very clearly at the last election. We’re sticking to that tax policy. We will set out our tax policy for the next election in due course, and then we will stick to that as well.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his statement, then: “The new Cabinet will be focused on core bread and butter issues like the cost of living, education, health, housing and keeping our communities and businesses safe,”, and, if so, does he agree that a wealth or capital gains tax would enable greater investment in those bread and butter issues?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes—although perhaps slightly less dramatically.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is it equitable for mega-rich New Zealanders, who have a combined wealth of $85 billion, to pay less than half the effective tax rate of ordinary New Zealanders, as found in the IRD’s latest tax report?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: New Zealanders can make their own judgments on that. That’s why the research was done, and the report has now been made public.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree that more tax revenue from a wealth or capital gains tax would ensure that Aotearoa had a standard of living that his Government could be proud of?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Mr Speaker, it’s a hypothetical question that the member is asking.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, particularly the Government’s action in securing a gold-standard free-trade agreement with the United Kingdom, unlocking unprecedented access to the UK market. This is expected to boost New Zealand’s goods exports to the UK by over 50 percent and add up to $1 billion to New Zealand’s annual GDP. The UK is New Zealand’s seventh-largest trading partner and a crucial market for some of our key exports such as wine, honey, red meat, and dairy. So this agreement will benefit our economic recovery and help to tackle the rising cost of living for New Zealand families.

Christopher Luxon: Does he take any responsibility for the fact that according to Treasury “the economy is tracking weaker than forecast.”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The New Zealand economy is not immune from the broader economic pressure that is being seen around the globe. I note a number of countries are experiencing a lot of economic pressure at the moment, as the member will be well aware from his recent travels to the UK, although I think he was too busy running down the New Zealand economy, perhaps, to pay any attention to that.

Christopher Luxon: What impact will the weakening economy have on Kiwis—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: More campaigning on the taxpayer’s dime.

Christopher Luxon: —already struggling with mortgage, food, and childcare costs, and why has he ruled out giving them tax relief at the Budget?

SPEAKER: Order! Sorry. Is that the Hon Dr Megan Woods interjecting during a question?

Hon Dr Megan Woods: It was.

SPEAKER: It was. This is becoming quite common. Yeah, I’m just wondering if I should escalate it up the ladder a bit. Well, you’ve been warned, so stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: I withdraw and apologise.

Christopher Luxon: Can I ask my question again?

SPEAKER: Yes, please.

Christopher Luxon: What impact will the weakening economy have on Kiwis already struggling with mortgage, food, and childcare costs, and why has he ruled out giving them tax relief at the Budget?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: One of the challenges with tax relief at this point is that it has the potential to be inflationary, thus ensuring that interest rates stay higher for longer and, therefore, potentially meaning families would be worse off.

Hon Meka Whaitiri: Will he guarantee that cultural competency is a prerequisite for all senior public appointments in light of his statement on the snubbing of King Tūheitia in London, that “Clearly there’s a reminder here that we can think more carefully about how we do that in the future.”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I absolutely stand by the statement that the member just quoted.

Hon Meka Whaitiri: Will he recall the High Commissioner for New Zealand to the United Kingdom, who demonstrated a clear lack of cultural understanding in welcoming Kīngi Tūheitia and the New Zealand delegation to London last week?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.

Christopher Luxon: Does he consider adjusting income tax brackets to be “a major tax change”, or can Kiwis actually finally expect a reduction in their income tax bill at the Budget, now that it’s an election year?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I just addressed that in my last question. Significant tax reductions, at this point, would likely result in higher inflation for longer.

Christopher Luxon: Why has the deficit blown out by $2.5 billion in just the last five months, and why is the Government continuing to spend so much more than it takes in, despite record inflation?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’d encourage the member to wait and see what the Budget forecasts are saying. It’s not too long to go now to when the most updated Government finances will be released, but it is fair to say that the Government finances have been affected by the broader economic situation.

Christopher Luxon: Is the only reason he’s flirting with a capital gains tax because he needs more of New Zealanders’ money to fuel his Government’s addiction to spending?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I note that the member himself, consistently in the first part of his leadership, was arguing for the Government to spend more money, even after the Reserve Bank started hiking the official cash rate. In fact, in between each of the first hikes that the Reserve Bank made to the official cash rate, he made policy announcements indicating the Government should be spending more money.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister accept that, in five years, Government expenditure has increased by 61 percent, 34 percent ahead of inflation, and can he give a measurable example of any Government service that is 34 percent better today than it was five years ago?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, I’ll give the member one policy initiative: there are 220,000 children who go to school every day and receive a free and healthy lunch because of the policies introduced by this Government.

Christopher Luxon: Will he rule out introducing a capital gains tax, a wealth tax, or an inheritance tax while he is Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’ve made very clear commitments that they won’t be in this year’s Budget. Of course, the Labour Party will set out its manifesto around tax for the next election, and, ultimately, New Zealanders will decide.

Christopher Luxon: Why is it that Jacinda Ardern could rule out a capital gains tax as Prime Minister, yet he can’t?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I note that she did that in the context of a general election campaign.

Christopher Luxon: Why can’t you just stop playing politics and come clean about your plans to tax Kiwis more for his Government’s wasteful addiction to spending?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I completely reject the notion that the Speaker is playing politics.

Question No. 3—Cyclone Recovery

3. to the Minister for Cyclone Recovery: What actions is the Government taking to respond to Cyclone Gabrielle?

Before I start my answer, I do want to acknowledge that many of those affected by Cyclone Gabrielle are the same people affected by the extreme weather events today, and we continue to express our sympathies and we will continue to support them. The Government is continuing to take action to provide certainty and assurance to communities and regions that have been affected by Cyclone Gabrielle. More than $860 million of additional support has been committed so far, including significant investment in our roading and rail network. It also includes $75 million to help small and medium sized businesses in the clean-up from the damage caused by Cyclone Gabrielle. More than 3,500 small businesses have been approved for grants to support their recovery. The Government is supporting our rural communities through more than $73 million in direct cyclone recovery grants and funding, and some 5,084 applications for grants have been approved, totalling $57 million in support so far. We are committed to a locally led, centrally supported response, working with communities to get them back on their feet, and regions back moving, as we move into the recovery and rebuild phases from Cyclone Gabrielle.

Anna Lorck: What is the Government doing to support councils and businesses with silt and debris removal in response to the cyclone?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Last week, the Government announced the allocation of $102 million to help councils process and dispose of the debris coming from residential properties and to deal with sediment on council land to make it available to the public again. There was also $70 million allocated for commercial properties, adding on to already granted money, including for farmers and growers to help them clean up their land and return to profit. There is also funding for debris and sediment removal from whenua Māori.

Anna Lorck: What recent work has been done to assess properties affected by Cyclone Gabrielle?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We know that this is a significant issue facing communities and we acknowledge the uncertainty and impact that this has on people, and we’re working very hard to provide as much certainty as soon as possible. The cyclone task force is working with councils and insurance companies to assess the risk status of affected areas. Three categories have been settled on, under which the future flood- and landslide-affected properties will be assessed. The intention is to complete assessments for low-risk properties in category one quickly so that people in those homes can settle with their insurance companies and get on with their recovery. Decisions on properties under category two, where community- or property-level interventions will manage future severe weather event risk, and category three, which will identify areas that are not safe to live in because of the unacceptable risk of future flooding and loss of life, will take a little longer. No decisions on properties or communities will be made without comprehensive consultation and engagement with communities, mana whenua, and other stakeholders. This is a stressful time for those waiting to hear about the future of their properties. It is important that we make the right decisions here, and I want to assure people we’re doing all we can to move this process as quickly and effectively as we can.

Anna Lorck: How well placed is New Zealand to deal with the consequences of extreme weather events?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Treasury has estimated the cost of asset damage from the floods and cyclone at between $9 billion and $14.5 billion, with half of that related to infrastructure owned by central or local government, such as roads and rail. This will require significant planning and sequencing of resources over the months and years ahead. But we are committed to supporting those affected through the recovery and rebuild. New Zealand is in a strong financial position to support our people through these challenging times, thanks to our careful management of the Government’s books. The Government’s debt level sits at 19.1 percent of GDP—well below our debt ceiling, and among the lowest in the OECD. We are well placed to deal with the impact of this extreme weather and any other future shocks.

Question No. 8 to Minister

SPEAKER: Before I call question No. 4, it’s come to my attention that there is a typo in question No. 8. It should refer to correspondence with the Ministry of Education, not the Minister of Education. So I’ve asked the member, when we come to question No. 8, that she asks as she submitted, and Speaker’s ruling 180/1 allows that correction to a typo.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

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

Yes—in particular, the action, through this year’s Budget, to deliver the biggest pay increase in over a decade for Defence Force personnel and to build on this Government’s record investments in upgrading New Zealand’s military capability. We have an obligation to ensure that our soldiers, sailors, and aviators are fairly paid for the critical and often dangerous work that they do, and this Government takes that responsibility very seriously on behalf of all New Zealanders.

David Seymour: What percentage of GDP will be spent on defence as a result of this announcement, and how will that compare with Australia’s recent announcement that they will be going beyond 2 percent of GDP as they respond to the geopolitical realities of the South Pacific?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Our spend on defence—depending on how you measure it—hovers at around 1 percent of GDP. Our Government is very much focused on the capability we need, rather than a spending target. I would have thought that the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers would be more interested in what we are paying for, rather than how much we are paying for it.

David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister seriously saying that he believes that the New Zealand Defence Force will be able to deliver the level of service expected by Australians for half their budget, and could he explain what magic they’ll be using?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m not so much focused on the level of service expected by Australians; I’m focused on the level of service expected by New Zealanders. What they are looking for is a Defence Force that is well resourced and equipped to be able to respond to the challenges in front of them. That includes being able to deploy to natural disasters, as we have seen them doing in recent times very successfully. It means contributing to the international efforts that we do currently contribute to and may wish to contribute to in the future. And it means ensuring that we have the capabilities that we need, such as, for example, for search and surveillance. I note that this Government has invested heavily in ensuring the futureproofing of those capabilities, something that the previous Government, supported by the ACT Party, never did.

David Seymour: Does he stand by his statement: “If you look at the apprehension rate for people who have undertaken that offending, it’s very high. Police have done a good job of finding those people”, when the apprehension rate in question for retail burglaries was only 19 percent?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I made clear at the time, I wasn’t referring to all burglaries; I was referring particularly to ram raids, because that was the context of the question that was being asked. So, if you look across 1,100 such offences since the beginning of last year, there have been just under 700 prosecutions, just under 300 youth referrals, and there are around 200 that remain under active investigation. I think the police have been doing very good work in following up on that offending and ensuring that those who have been doing it face the consequences for their actions.

David Seymour: So retail burglary offenders getting away with it 81 percent of the time is OK, because that’s not what the Prime Minister was talking about—right?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, I didn’t claim that. I do note that the work the police have done in recent years to make it easier for retailers to report retail crime, including shoplifting, does mean that police have a fuller picture now of the true extent of that activity. I think that is a good thing, and police will continue to follow up on it.

David Seymour: Does he still stand by his statement, when there were more than 3,000 aggravated robberies but only 1,300 proceedings taken against offenders last year?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Whether or not a proceeding takes place does not necessarily provide the full picture of the response from police. I do want to note that, under this Government, we have nearly—we’ve nearly got there—1,800 extra police on the beat. And I note that the ACT Party voted against the funding to deliver that.

David Seymour: Does he stand by his 31 January statement that “The new Cabinet will be focused on core bread and butter issues”, and does he believe Stuart Nash, Kiri Allan, and Meka Whaitiri have all been focused on core bread and butter issues?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes, I absolutely do.

David Seymour: And what about those three Ministers that went missing?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I dealt with all of those at the time.

Question No. 5—Housing

5. to the Minister of Housing: What action is the Government taking to support the residential construction sector and increase the supply of housing?

The residential development construction sector is prone to boom and bust cycles. Following the global financial crisis, the supply of new, affordable housing dropped significantly, which pushed house prices up. To provide some counter-cyclical support, the Government is stepping in to support some build-ready developments by purchasing land or underwriting homes off the plans to reduce risk for developers, which means we can continue to build affordable homes.

Shanan Halbert: How is the Government partnering with developers to continue the delivery of affordable homes?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We know that we must build our way out of our current housing crisis, so it is vital that we maintain momentum in the sector as the headwinds grow. To do this, the Government is working with developers to support stalled developments in areas where there is high need for new housing through the Build Ready Development Pathway. Through round one, we’ve supported eight developments across the country, enabling 144 homes in Tauranga, Hastings, and Lower Hutt. A second round which will support more developments opens next week.

Shanan Halbert: What other initiatives does the Government have under way to support the delivery of more affordable homes?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government is supporting the delivery of thousands of affordable homes across New Zealand through the Government’s underwrite for residential housing. Last week, I opened Ockham Residential’s 117 apartment Aroha development in Avondale. Aroha, Ockham’s fourth development assisted by the Government underwrite for residential housing, KiwiBuild, and our Land for Housing programme, would not have gone ahead without Government intervention. During a downturn, the Government must be an active partner with industry to secure the delivery of affordable homes, not just a spectator, and we’re getting on with the job.

Shanan Halbert: And what else has the Government done to enable the delivery of more affordable homes?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The $1 billion Infrastructure Acceleration Fund, part of our $3.8 billion Housing Acceleration Fund, is supporting the delivery of critical infrastructure projects in 28 New Zealand cities and towns. Combined, these projects are expected to enable between 30,000 and 35,000 new homes over the next 10 to 15 years. Funding recipients have overwhelmingly reported being on track with their programmes, with two developments in Waimakariri and Lake Hāwea ahead of schedule with their civil works. I am encouraged to report that across the country there are 71 houses complete, 101 under construction, and 635 having building consents approved.

Question No. 6—Justice

6. to the Minister of Justice: Is she confident that all legislation she is responsible for is working effectively; if not, why not?

The member, of course, will be well aware that that’s a very broad inquiry. As the Minister of Justice, I’m responsible for 155 pieces of legislation. While generally these laws are working effectively, in a portfolio this broad there will always be areas that regularly need to be reviewed and updated. For example, since I became the Minister of Justice, I have passed or introduced legislation that gives police more powers to pursue organised crime, strengthened counter-terrorism regimes, increased community participation in alcohol-licensing decisions, improved access to legal aid, reduced delays in the Family Court, expanded the Māori electoral option, and improved the transparency of the electoral donations regime.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she believe there is a problem with the Official Information Act (OIA) that is leading to the long delays in replies coming from her colleague Willie Jackson’s office for OIA requests, or is it more one of the culture within her Government?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: With respect to the first part, my understanding is that the Hon Willie Jackson is aware that a mistake was made in his office, and it is subsequently being rectified. To the overarching efficacy and efficiency of the OIA scheme, in my mind, the law itself is generally sound, and should the status of the Official Information Act ever change, the Government would be seeking cross-party engagement on any forthcoming changes to the legislation. But what I will say is that this Government has taken a very proactive approach to transparency. In particular, I note that the Government has introduced the proactive release of Cabinet papers—with three-quarters of papers being released within the policy agreed by Cabinet—and introduced the monthly proactive release of ministerial diaries. I also note that, in terms of parliamentary scrutiny, the Government has answered 113,000 written parliamentary questions in the last parliamentary term, compared to 41,500 by the previous National Government in their previous term.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she believe amendments to the Ombudsmen Act are required following her colleague Willie Jackson’s refusal to answer questions from the Ombudsman in a timely fashion, or is the issue more a question of culture within her Government?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: No.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she think there’s an issue with the wording of the Official Information Act that allows RNZ to use RNZ tikanga as contributing to the decision not to release a transcript of her speech to that organisation, or would she say that the problem lies with RNZ’s culture?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: No.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she believe the waka jumping provisions of the Electoral Act are working effectively, when it appears all it takes for MPs to avoid it is not to send in the right letter?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I do. As the scheme was introduced at the outset, it was always intended to be an opt-in scheme. The legislation is very clear.

Question No. 7—Health

7. to the Minister of Health: What action is the Government taking to ease winter pressure on the health system?

Last week, I announced the Government’s comprehensive plan to ease winter pressure on the health system. This plan is being led by Te Whatu Ora and includes 24 initiatives to help support community care and reduce hospital demand.

Dr Tracey McLellan: How will our new national health system help us deliver this plan?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: This winter, a reformed health system is allowing us to identify successful local programmes and scale them across the country, tailoring any healthcare approach to meet unique needs. Resources will be shared across health facilities within a region, with providers working together. Coordination at a national level means the health system is better prepared to respond locally and connect people to share knowledge and deliver services this winter.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Can you tell us some of the specific actions in the plan?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Our plan is focused on a combination of improving access to health services for people closer to where they live, as well as measures that can help manage the demand for hospital-level care over winter. It includes support for pharmacies to treat minor ailments, hospital in the home services, increased access to radiology services in the community, and community rapid response tools to lessen hospital admissions for our most vulnerable people.

Dr Tracey McLellan: How will the plan ease pressure on the health system this winter?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: These initiatives are being driven by Te Whatu Ora to reinforce the message that the care at the right time, at the right place is required. They will deliver health services to people closer to where they live, ultimately alleviating additional pressure on hospitals. It’s important people feel confident they can get the healthcare they need this winter, and I’m fully supporting this plan to deliver it.

Question No. 8—Education

8. to the Minister of Education: What information did her staff provide her after question time on 22 February when they informed her of their correspondence with the Ministry of Education about the release of the term 3 attendance data, and when did they first show her their correspondence with the Ministry that was subsequently released to me under the Official Information Act?

To the first part of the question: 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. To the second part of the question: I first saw copies of the correspondence the member is referring to when it came to me for sign-out approval under the Official Information Act. I am aware that the member has been suggesting that information shows that my office inappropriately interfered with the release of term 3 attendance data. While I disagree with that allegation, to provide greater transparency going forward I have written to the Secretary of Education requesting the Ministry of Education consider publishing a forward-looking timeline on when attendance data will be released for each term on their website.

Erica Stanford: How can it be that she said, “I can categorically tell that member that the Ministry of Education is responsible for the data. I have no say over that.” and then still believe that her answers were not misleading, when her staff told her that they did play a part in releasing the data after she made those misleading comments?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Because I felt that my answers reflected what I was intending them to mean at the time of the delivery, which is that the Ministry of Education is responsible for the collation and release of the term 3 data.

Erica Stanford: In relation to that answer, how can she miss out the last part of her quote, which says, “I have no say over that.”, and still believe that her questions were not misleading, when her staff told her that they had been in contact with the ministry to delay the release of the term 3 data?

Hon JAN TINETTI: As I’ve just said, because I felt my answers reflected what I was intending to mean at the time of delivery, which is that the Ministry of Education is responsible for the collation and release of the term 3 attendance data. Mr Speaker, you wrote to me following a letter from the member regarding information that was provided to her by my office under the Official Information Act. You requested that I make a personal statement to correct my answers to supplementary questions on 22 February, which I have done. You have subsequently written to the member informing her that there was no breach of privilege. I have written to the Ministry of Education asking it to proactively publish when attendance data will be released for each term so this situation doesn’t happen again.

SPEAKER: The problem with bringing the Speaker into the House is that I have to get up and clarify things. I did not ask you to do that; I just set out that if that was the case, then the member can come to correct it. I’ll give the member an extra question.

Erica Stanford: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can she explain why she didn’t know that she’d mislead the House until 1 May when the Speaker contacted her, when she signed off an Official Information Act request prior to 11 April containing the very emails showing her staff did delay the release of the term 3 attendance data until after her political announcement?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Firstly, those emails did not show that. I will say that the emails themselves, under the Official Information Act, talked about the data coming forward. Secondly, what I will say to that member is that I stand by what I thought on that particular day, but I stand corrected from advice that was since given to me on 1 May.

Erica Stanford: Can she explain to this House how she doesn’t believe that her staff were deliberately delaying the release of the data, when their email states, “The plan is to release it after the announcement—and that announcement is scheduled for Thursday. So Friday would be the day.”?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Because at the time, the Ministry of Education was talking about a much later date releasing that data.

Erica Stanford: Did she just believe that the timing of the release of the data at the same time as her political announcement was pure coincidence?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I actually think that the data and the political announcement on the same day was coincidence.

Erica Stanford: Can she assure this House that her office has not played a part in influencing the timing of the release of the attendance data on any other occasion during her time as Minister?

Hon JAN TINETTI: If the member is referring to other data, yes, I can confirm that.

Question No. 9—Defence

9. to the Minister of Defence: What recent announcements has he made on Defence Force funding?

Yesterday, I was happy to announce that Budget 2023 will invest $419 million over four years to deliver the biggest pay increase in over a decade to our defence personnel. A number of factors have led to a significant pressure on our Defence Force. These include high rates of staff turnover, as well as an increase in calls on the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) such as responding to Cyclone Gabrielle, training Ukrainian troops in the UK, and surveillance and patrolling in our region. Attracting and retaining more New Zealanders into our defence force means we need to ensure that wages are competitive. This investment helps achieve that. We have a moral obligation, as the Prime Minister has said, to ensure our soldiers, sailors, and aviators are fairly paid for the critical and often dangerous work that they do, and this Government takes that responsibility seriously on behalf of all New Zealanders. In addition to that, I also announced yesterday $328 million for upgrading our Defence Force assets and infrastructure to ensure that we can better work with our partners to meet our commitments here, in the Pacific, and abroad.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: How will this investment affect pay rates for defence personnel?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: With this investment, the pay of many NZDF personnel, including new recruits and skilled lower-ranked service personnel, will increase by between $4,000 and $15,000 from 1 July. Ninety percent of NZDF personnel will now be paid at, or close to, market rates for comparable roles, and this will go a long way to address attrition issues and make defence a career of choice. This increase is four times greater than any previous defence remuneration boost since 2014.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: What will this package provide regarding defence housing?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Many personnel in the NZDF and their families are asked to move between bases to serve, and it’s important that the housing provided is suitable to support them to do their jobs: $85.5 million will go towards the renovation and modernisation of 13 houses at Linton, Ōhākea, and Burnham, and a significant investment of 50 new houses at Waiōuru to continue the Government’s commitment to progress the commercial redress partnership in the Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Act 2019. Providing housing that is safe, futureproofed, and fit for the needs of personnel at individual camps and bases will ensure that personnel are healthy and well positioned to perform their roles effectively when and where we need them.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: What will this package mean for upgrading defence equipment and infrastructure?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: It’s important that New Zealand has the personnel and equipment to play our part in supporting global peace and security. That’s why we’re investing $90 million for a new aviation fuelling facility at Ōhākea to support our new P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, and $59 million to extend the life of our two Anzac class frigates through to the mid-2030s. In addition, we’re also investing $93 million to provide world-class communications systems to meet the most recent international interoperability and security standards, and to ensure secure communication with our partners on our frigates and our new Bushmaster protected mobility vehicles. This will allow for the state of the art voice and data transfer on encrypted platforms.

Question No. 10—Health

10. to the Minister of Health: Why did a mental health patient wait 94 hours in the Auckland Hospital emergency department in late March, and how much has been spent of the $27.45 million announced for crisis mental health services in Budget 2022?

Firstly, the head of the hospital has apologised to these patients, and I agree that this kind of experience for patients is unacceptable. To the first part of that question, I am advised that the patient arrived at a very busy time in the emergency department and for the acute mental health inpatient service. A suitable bed was not available and the patient was not well enough to be discharged at the time. The staff of the hospital searched tirelessly for a bed until they found one. In the meantime, this patient was assessed and treated by staff in a bed in the short-stay unit. To the second part of the question, Budget 2022 included a specialist mental health and addictions services package within which is the delivery of eight community-based alternative crisis services across a mix of small, medium, and large areas of New Zealand. Of the $2.5 million available this year, the estimated spend at 30 June will be $825,000. The commencement of the spend has been slightly delayed, but I am advised that five services are due to begin in June 2023.

Matt Doocey: So is the Minister saying, on one hand, mental health patients are waiting up to 94 hours in emergency departments and, on the other hand, of the $27.5 million announced for crisis mental health services, less than $1 million of that has been spent, and can the Minister tell the House what the connection between those two is?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Well, it’s not for me to tell the House what that member thinks the connection between those two things is, because, of course, it is not clear that that patient would have been suitable to move to a community setting. However, I am clear that those services were part of a budget that spending for that rolled up over time, and those services are due to start in the coming months.

Matt Doocey: How will we ever know whether that patient would have qualified for that crisis mental health service, when the Minister has admitted the Government has failed to spend the money promised on that initiative?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I am advised the services will be stood up in June.

Matt Doocey: So how will the service that is going to be stood up in June help a patient that waited for 94 hours in an emergency department, that was described by one health professional as the longest wait time for a mental health patient ever in New Zealand’s emergency department, help that person?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I understand the member’s frustration with that situation and I have also said that it is unacceptable. But that member makes an assumption about the clinical needs of that patient that neither of us are in a position to make.

Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

11. to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What advice has the Commerce Commission issued to help reduce costs for Kiwis when shopping?

The Commerce Commission says Kiwis can take steps to avoid retailer credit card fees, and retailers should be more transparent about how consumers can do this. The commission is concerned that many people think they have no option but to pay the surcharge at the end of their transaction. Usually, this is not true. You have the option of inserting or swiping your debit or EFTPOS card rather than using the contactless function, and this should not incur a fee. The Commerce Commission believes consumers should have the informed choice of which payment method best meets their needs and budget, and it is taking action accordingly.

Andrew Bayly: That’s going to solve the cost of living crisis!

SPEAKER: Andrew Bayly will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Andrew Bayly: I withdraw—and apologise.

Naisi Chen: What action has the Commerce Commission taken to support consumers in this matter?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The Commerce Commission is reminding businesses that any surcharges must be clearly disclosed and any reasons for the surcharge must be accurately described, to avoid breaching the Fair Trading Act. It also noted that businesses should contact their payment service provider if they do not clearly understand the costs they are paying. Most importantly, the levels of the surcharges should not be in excess of the costs of accepting the payment.

Naisi Chen: What actions has the commission taken to tackle problematic practices by retailers?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Lots. The commission has published materials to assist merchants who are surcharging to do so appropriately and to ensure consumers know their options. The commission has also written to a number of large merchants, raising concerns about the level of their surcharges. In addition to their work with merchants, the commission has published an open letter to payment service providers to set its expectations that merchants impose surcharges only in a transparent and fair manner.

Naisi Chen: What should Kiwis do when paying at the store if they are concerned about payment surcharges?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Kiwi consumers should expect that their payment options at the terminal are transparent and fair. If it is unclear, they should ask what surcharges are being added to their purchase and whether there are any other payment options with lower or no surcharges. Kiwi consumers can also expect both retailers and their payment service providers to ensure fair and transparent options for payments and should speak up when they have concerns. I am also encouraging retailers and payment providers to follow the commission’s guidance. When this happens, consumers should start to see some surcharges at the checkout reduced—good news for Kiwi shoppers.

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—and quote—“It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer within a Government on track to deliver 1,800 extra police.” The member has wilfully omitted the second half of my sentence. As Minister—

SPEAKER: Order! You cannot say that; that’s tantamount to saying someone is lying. The Minister will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: And I take it the answer’s over—

Hon Mark Mitchell: Can I take an extra—

SPEAKER: I’ll give the member an extra two questions.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Yeah, thank you, Mr Speaker. Does she think the 33 percent increase in violent crime makes New Zealanders feel safer?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I continue to work as Minister of Police to make sure that our communities are safe in three main areas: by backing our police by having 1,800 extra police officers; by making sure we focus on retail crime by delivering fog cannons and extra security measures; and, thirdly, by addressing youth offending with specific programmes in those areas to make sure we address the underlying drivers of crime.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Does the Minister think that the 1,800 police are making Kiwis feel safer?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Let me be clear: as Minister, I am committed to making New Zealanders feel safe by tackling crime. That is quite different from what the member said in the statement. Oddly, the member appears to be suggesting that New Zealanders feel safer with fewer members of the police on the front line.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Does she think a 551 percent increase in ram raids makes shopkeepers and their employees feel safer?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: One ram raid more is always one ram raid too much. I will continue to work by resourcing our front line adequately, by making sure the retail crime prevention scheme is focused on making sure those measures are in place, and also the backing up of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment scheme which enables retail providers to have access to things like a fog cannon quickly.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Does she think that a 61 percent increase in gang membership is making New Zealanders feel safer?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I continue to make sure that New Zealanders feel safer by making sure our front line are resourced adequately. The 1,800 additional front-line police officers also include 700 police officers specifically dedicated to organised crime, which means operations like Cobalt can continue to deliver outcomes like 35,000 charges specific to gang members and organised crime—far greater than any achieved under previous Governments.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Have ram raids gone up or down since she became Minister?

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

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

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Ram raids increased into August last year and they peaked at 119. That has continued to track down. As I’ve said before, one ram raid is always one ram raid too much. I will continue to make sure we reduce retail crime by making sure our front line is adequately resourced and also by making sure retail owners have the security measures in place they need to keep safe.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The question was very specific. It was: have ram raids increased or decreased since she has become Minister of Police?

SPEAKER: Well, all right. The Minister did go back to before she was Minister, but, in doing so, I believe it has been addressed.

Dan Rosewarne: Is the Minister aware of any parties that voted against firearms legislation that would’ve made it harder for gangs to get hold of guns?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Yes, I am, and I’d like to continue by saying we’re going to work collaboratively right across this House when we have a firearm registry. I’m keen to be talking with members of other parties about how we can make sure we keep firearms out of the hands of those organised criminal groups and enable our legal firearms owners to have a safe and smooth pathway on that basis.