Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement on Radio New Zealand last month that “we’re not going to let low and middle income people particularly suffer at the hands of the high inflation we’re seeing”; if so, is he delivering on that commitment?

I stand by my full statement, “We move into a phase where we do see government spending overall reduce, but at the same time we’re not going to let low and middle income people particularly suffer at the hands of the high inflation we’re seeing—so it’s tricky, everyone acknowledges that.” To the second part of the member’s question, yes, in particular the changes that came into effect on 1 April that will see pensioners, veterans, students, workers on a minimum wage, and families receiving Working for Families all better off.

Nicola Willis: How can he claim to be delivering for low and middle income New Zealanders when Canstar’s Consumer Pulse survey for 2023 found that one in four Kiwis say putting food on the table is their biggest worry?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we’ve discussed many times in the House in recent times, there are particularly tough times for many New Zealand families. That’s why, as I said, we were focused on lifting the incomes of low and middle income families through, for example, the 1 April changes I just mentioned.

Nicola Willis: Well, isn’t it the case that a family with two school-aged kids on an average household income of $117,000 a year will likely get nothing from the Government’s 1 April changes because they’re not eligible for Working for Families?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Obviously, the circumstances for each person is different. There are other benefits such as the accommodation supplement that might apply in the situation that the member has raised. What I do know is that the focus that we’ve had on lifting the incomes of low and middle income New Zealanders, including through lifting Working for Families tax credits, has been opposed by the National Party.

Nicola Willis: How will those changes support a family with a $600,000 mortgage who need to re-fix it from an average rate of 2.6 percent two years ago to a 6.4 percent rate today, costing them approximately $440 more every week?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Again, obviously, individual circumstances for families would have to be taken into account to be able to answer the member’s question precisely. What I do know is that if those people are in work they would have been part of an economy where we’ve seen average annual wages rise by over 8 percent.

Nicola Willis: Does he accept that it doesn’t matter how many new payments he designs, the underlying issue in our economy is rampant inflation—higher than that in Australia, the United States, Canada, and many other countries we like to compare ourselves with, and what will his Budget do to address the underlying drivers of inflation?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s good that the member is focused on the underlying drivers of inflation—for example, decarbonising our economy, making sure we’re less reliant on the price of petrol, for example. For what happens in New Zealand would require a Government to actually act to start reducing emissions, which this Government did, and the previous Government didn’t. We also have got the work we’re doing around grocery competition, which I mentioned would be coming up in the next term of the House. These are the underlying causes of inflation. The Government continues to make sure that we support New Zealanders through tough times, and again I say, whenever we propose something to do that, the National Party oppose it.

Nicola Willis: Does he accept that New Zealand is now suffering higher inflation and interest rates than many other countries because we embarked on a larger programme of money printing, because his Government is spending more, and because it has failed to act on immigration settings?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In terms of one of the various questions within there, what we did during COVID was important to make sure that not only we saved lives but we also saved livelihoods and businesses. And as I noted to the member during the annual review debate earlier this week: actually, more often than not, when the official cash rate started to go up it was the National Party who were asking us to spend more money, including an $11 billion tax cut package that would have favoured the most wealthy in our society.

Nicola Willis: When will he take responsibility for his inaction on inflation, letting it rip through Kiwis’ household budgets and forcing the Reserve Bank to deliver their 11th official cash rate hike in a row yesterday—yet another punch in the guts to New Zealanders?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is well aware of who it is who is responsible for setting the official cash rate. In 2016, her mentor, Bill English, in response to questions, said, “It is the responsibility of the Reserve Bank. Our job, through fiscal policy, is to support New Zealanders through tough times.” We are doing that. Every time we have proposed something to do that, the National Party has opposed it.

Question No. 2—Social Development and Employment

2. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she seen on the update of hardship grants for dental assistance?

In December 2022, we increased the amount of non-recoverable assistance lower-income New Zealanders can receive from Work and Income for immediate and essential dental treatment from $300 to $1,000. In the four months following this change, there were 29,349 grants for non-recoverable financial help for dental treatment. This is more than double the number of grants in the same period of 2021-22. This change means that over $20.7 million in financial support has been provided to New Zealanders needing dental treatment—an increase of over $16.7 million on the same time last year.

Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki: How many people have had to access recoverable assistance for dental treatment?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: If someone needs treatment that is in excess of $1,000, they may be eligible for a recoverable grant from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). I’m pleased to say that while the number of people who have accessed non-recoverable assistance has doubled, the people who have needed recoverable support has fallen by over 1,000 people. This means more people are getting help, less people are getting into debt, and the change is working.

Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki: Have there been any changes to the criteria for the grants?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Yes. We have widened the criteria for the grant. Now, instead of the grant only being available in an emergency treatment, it will now be available for essential treatment to help stop minor problems becoming major ones. We have also changed the amount of times you can access the grant throughout the year. Previously, you could only receive one dental grant, even if it did not reach the $300 limit. Now, clients can access the grant multiple times in one year, up to the value of $1,000, meaning if you have a treatment that costs $400, you still have $600 you can access if another necessary treatment is required.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she believe anyone should go into any form of debt because they need to access essential healthcare; if so, why?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: It’s really important that we provide financial support to people who need it. Those on the lowest incomes struggle to pay for dental care. I’m really proud of the fact that we have lifted that grant, which hadn’t been increased for many years. When they require more, then it is an opportunity for them to be able to get that but pay it back, and MSD works with them to make sure that they can afford the payments that they have to make.

Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki: Have there been any other changes to hardship support?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: In Budget 2022, we also announced a lift in the income-limits access to hardship support. This means more low-income people will be able to access hardship assistance, including dental grants.

Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki: Why was extending this support important?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Dental care is something that can be put off by people due to affordability difficulties, especially in low-income households. We also know that issues with dental health have a negative impact on people’s general health, financial health, ability to work, and quality of life. This is particularly important when it comes to employment. Having bad oral health can decrease someone’s confidence and affect their ability to secure long-term sustainable employment.

Question No. 3—Housing

3. to the Minister of Housing: What advice has she sought, if any, on the impact of rising interest rates on housing costs?

on behalf of the Minister of Housing: I receive a range of advice from my officials. This includes advice and information on the impact of interest rates on potential buyers, existing homeowners, and investor activity, and the impact of economic headwinds—which also includes the rising interest rates—on residential development and construction.

Chris Bishop: Has she sought an estimate on the increased number of borrowers in mortgage arrears due to the increase in the official cash rate yesterday, given that as at the end of February, there were 18,900 mortgages on which borrowers had missed payments?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, I believe that the advice, indeed, on mortgage arrears is that that has increased in recent times.

Chris Bishop: How does she expect a young family that borrowed heavily to get into their own home just two years ago will cope with hundreds of dollars a week more in interest costs?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, it will be very challenging for a number of households, as we’ve covered in this period of time recently in the House. What I do know is that if those people are in work, they will have been in receipt—in many cases—of wage increases, some of which have been in excess of inflation.

Chris Bishop: What modelling, if any, has she commissioned in relation to the impact on rents of the continued implementation of the removal of interest deductibility for residential landlords, allied with rising interest rates?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, I’m not sure if modelling is required necessarily by the Government when a lot of it is done, including the Kantar survey, which has already been quoted in this House.

Chris Bishop: So has she seen any modelling from the Kantar survey or otherwise that suggests that rents will continue to rise as a result of the accelerating removal of interest deductibility, allied with rising interest rates?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There’s a variety of reasons why people will increase rents, which, I might say, have increased under the rate of inflation in recent times. The Kantar survey indicated that just over a quarter of landlords were citing changes to property tax law, but many others cited other reasons for why they might increase rent.

Question No. 4—Health

4. to the Minister of Health: What improvements have been made in Taranaki for patients requiring renal services?

I was lucky enough to officially open the new renal unit at Taranaki Base Hospital last month. The renal unit, Te Huhi Raupō—a name gifted by Ngā Iwi o Taranaki and Taumaruroa—is an amazing new facility that will play a key part in the lives of renal patients and their whānau. Te Huhi Raupō was built as part of Project Maunga stage two, the redevelopment of the Taranaki Base Hospital campus, in order to be able to deliver models of care in modern facilities.

Angela Roberts: How will the new renal unit provide improved care to patients?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The new single-storey timber building has 10 patient treatment chairs, two training rooms to help patients learn to carry out their own care, an isolation room, and a self-care room. I know from my time working in dialysis units that convenient access to integrated health services is important for people who have to spend several hours a week in these facilities. The addition of three out-patient rooms means the facility can now accommodate other services, such as social work, dieticians, podiatry for patients with diabetes, and also provide wraparound care.

Angela Roberts: How has the renal unit been supported by the community?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: There’s been a great community support for this project. The Taranaki Health Foundation has fund-raised audiovisual equipment and an ultrasound; I acknowledge their support for this project. The landscaping outside the unit was a real community effort, with most of the plants, topsoil, and mulch donated by excellent local businesses. The work to complete the gardens was done by volunteers from the Lions Club, Downers, and New Plymouth District Council. I think we can all agree that these kinds of contributions are fantastic.

Angela Roberts: How was the project funded?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Project Maunga is funded by a partnership approach between the Crown, regional fund-raising, and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority—EECA. The Project Maunga stage two totals $403 million; this consists of $397 million in Crown funding, $5.3 million in Taranaki fund-raising, and $1.2 million from EECA.

Question No. 5—Health

5. to the Minister of Health: Is the emergency department qualifying attendance data published by Health New Zealand this week different from the corrected ED data that she advised the House on 14 March 2023 was the correct data; if so, what are the differences?

Yes, the statistics I was referring to on 14 March are different to what was published on 4 April. For the data published on 4 April, across the 12 measures, there are minor shifts in the reported numbers. I am advised that this is normal due to data in national collections continually being updated as patient records are processed. This means that the same analysis performed a week later will have slightly different results. For two measures—emergency department (ED) admissions and emergency department presentations—Te Whatu Ora’s checking process identified underlying issues with the flow from Southern, West Coast, Waikato, and Counties Manukau. These types of updates have occurred in the past and will occur in the future when working with administrative data. Minor shifts in emergency department presentations impact the ED qualifying attendance data. This has been rectified in the republished metrics.

Dr Shane Reti: How can Kiwis have any confidence in this Government’s health reforms if the new centralised health system can’t even perform simple tasks like publishing accurate and consistent ED wait times?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: As I said to the House in my initial reply to this question a few weeks ago, this type of administrative data reflects real-world data collected in the health system, and there will be minor changes in it from time to time. Now, the sum total of these changes is less than 2 percent when you look across the “Shorter Stays in ED” statistics. I wouldn’t be fussy about a 2 percent difference if I was a party who had just had to correct the casting of 73 percent of their votes!

Dr Shane Reti: Is she calling a difference of 4,502 patients between the two datasets at Counties Manukau minor and insignificant?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: No, but I think that when you look across—what I am saying is that, with these types of administrative datasets, corrections occur all the time, and that is part of the usual publishing of these types of statistics, as I explained to him previously in the House.

Dr Shane Reti: When she wrote that having eight ED beds out of commission for up to 10 weeks due to a leak at Waikato Hospital is having no impact on patient wait times, does she seriously expect New Zealanders and staff to believe that?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The particular performance of that emergency department—those updated statistics—will be published in due course.

Dr Shane Reti: Doesn’t it show that she has done absolutely nothing to fix Middlemore ED from June last year, when the independent inquiry into a death said Middlemore ED was overcrowded and unsafe, through to now, with a leaked staff survey last week showing 81 percent of Middlemore ED staff don’t have the resources to do their job well?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: There have been a number of measures implemented at Middlemore ED to improve the flow there, from the type of senior staff being there right at the front door to assess patients being one of the lead ones so that good decisions are made by those most qualified to make them and in the patients’ best interests. The staff have done an excellent job implementing the recommendations of their report. I stand by their efforts.

Question No. 6—Broadcasting and Media

6. to the Minister for Broadcasting and Media: What announcements has he made regarding funding for world-class public media?

Today, I’ve announced that we’re delivering a funding boost to deliver world-class public media for New Zealanders. Radio New Zealand (RNZ) will receive a 60 percent increase of $25.7 million annually. This funding will help it meet competing demands and deliver world-class public media for all of Aotearoa. This will be made up of $12 million per annum to address existing capability, $12 million per annum to strengthen RNZ for the future and help it reach underserved audiences, and $1.7 million per annum to support its AM transmission service, which was so important during Cyclone Gabrielle. Without this immediate investment, RNZ would not have the ability to provide the services expected of public media, let alone meet the needs of New Zealanders in a digital age.

Naisi Chen: What support is New Zealand On Air receiving?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The news gets better. We will restore New Zealand On Air’s baseline funding of $42.2 million per annum, which was going to the new public media entity under previous plans. On top of this, New Zealand On Air will receive an extra $10 million to its baseline for 2023-24, and the new funding will support the creation of new and innovative content to connect with new audiences through cross-sector collaboration with RNZ, Whakaata Māori, and Te Māngai Pāho. It will go beyond journalism to include a focus on content for children, rangatahi, Māori, Pacific, and regional audiences. All New Zealand will benefit.

Naisi Chen: Why is this new funding critical for public media in New Zealand?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: An independent, well-functioning, resilient public media is the cornerstone of our democracy. With the package I have outlined, we’ll be able to develop high-quality content that better represents and connects with audiences. We want a public media that delivers for all Kiwis, including Māori, Pasifika, Asia, disabled people, rangatahi, and our tamariki. We can make sure that in a digital age, we’re able to protect our unique Kiwi identity and ensure Kiwis have access to the information and entertainment they need when they need it on the platforms they use. Recent weather events have proved the importance of public media. Without this new funding, RNZ would not be commercially viable because they were starved of funding for nine years by the previous National Government.

Damien Smith: Will he look Kiwis in the eye and tell them he’s proud to be spending tens of millions of their dollars on a shiny new website for Radio New Zealand, and how does he have the nerve to claim as “savings” the cancellation of hundreds of millions of dollars in expenditure on the failed media merger, which he announced in the first place?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yes.

Naisi Chen: What else is being done—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! We’ll have silence for supplementaries.

Naisi Chen: What else is being done to strengthen public media?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: There’s even more. With TVNZ, a clear way to strengthen public media in Aotearoa is for TVNZ to play a more active broadcasting role. And I’ll be sitting down with Simon and the old National Party mates over there and Manatū Taonga. We’re going to just traverse things and work things through with Simon in terms of a way forward. They’re such an important part of our broadcasting ecosystem. We’re looking closely at how Radio New Zealand can collaborate and work with Māori broadcasting. We’ve made a significant investment in terms of Māori broadcasting. How can we work in tandem—in partnership? The RNZ charter review: the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill included a new charter designed for a modern fit-for-purpose national public media entity. We’ll use that good work to update and strengthen our RNZ charter. And my officials are looking to modernise our outdated Broadcasting Act legislation that the useless National Party put in place.

Melissa Lee: Does the Minister regret spending nearly $12 million on consultants for the failed mega-merger of RNZ and TVNZ, who were not even public media experts, and how has that spending resulted in “world-class public media”?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No.

Question No. 7—Justice

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

on behalf of the Minister of Justice: On behalf of the Minister of Justice, yes, in their context, including statements that address previous statements.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What actions, if any, has she taken to reassure New Zealanders that the Official Information Act legislation is fit for purpose following the recent case of former Minister Stuart Nash deciding not to release documents that were clearly captured by the Act?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I have no information that would suggest that the Official Information Act is not fit for purpose.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What confidence should New Zealanders have in her commitment to the principles of the Official Information Act when she, as a Cabinet Minister, previously texted her colleagues—quote, “if we are being lobbied on issues by colleagues, especially where we haven’t had a yarn, things unfolding through OIA process less than desirable.”?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I didn’t hear the final words of that quote, but I do know, on behalf of the Minister, that she respects and abides by the Official Information Act.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What made her think it could possibly be appropriate for her as a Cabinet Minister to make statements to a State-owned public broadcaster that could be interpreted as telling them how to manage their staff or their company?

Hon DAVID PARKER: On behalf of the Minister, her intention was to speak on behalf of her family. She has made it clear that although she didn’t have responsibilities in the media and broadcasting portfolio, she can understand that other people thought it was wrong to make statements when she was there. Even though not as a portfolio Minister, she was a Minister, and she has apologised for that.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Are there any other instances the Minister is aware of where she has breached the Cabinet Manual, and if so, what are those?

Hon DAVID PARKER: On behalf of the Minister, so far as I’m aware, no.

Question No. 8—Police

8. to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has she seen on the composition of the Police workforce across New Zealand?

Last week, I attended my very first police graduation as Minister of Police. It was a real honour, and I want to congratulate the 59 recruits who graduated; this is just the start of their journey, one that comes with an enormous responsibility. As of 3 April, there are 10,609 constabulary officers working across New Zealand, helping to keep our communities safe. Since 2017, there have been 3,938 new constables who have graduated from the Royal New Zealand Police College, including this week’s 59 new recruits. After this graduation, the total number of fulltime-equivalent police officers has grown by 1,770 since 2017—an increase of around 20 percent in constabulary numbers. Police are well on track to deliver the 1,800 extra police officers that we promised in 2017.

Arena Williams: How many new officers have joined the service since 2017 in the North Island, and where have they been stationed?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: There are 984 additional police officers in stations right across the North Island since 2017. Of these, 181 are in Central and Wellington; 342 in Eastern, Bay of Plenty, and the Waikato; and 73 in Northland, with 389 across Tāmaki-makau-rau.

Arena Williams: How many new officers have joined the service since 2017 in the South Island, and where are they located?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: There are 230 additional police officers right across the South Island since 2017. Of these, 126 are in Canterbury, 55 in Southern, and 48 in Tasman. As well as these districts, an additional 556 staff are working in the service centres right across New Zealand to keep our communities safe.

Arena Williams: What recent reports has she seen on the diversity of the New Zealand Police Service?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: More than two thirds of the growth in constabulary numbers of employees since 2017 have been in ethnicities other than Pākehā: more than one in five in the growth has been Māori, almost one in five has been Asian, and more than one in five is Pasifika. With 2,725 female officers, more than a quarter of the constabulary employees are women. I believe it’s important that we have a police service that reflects our community. While these numbers are promising, there’s still more good work to be done.

Question No. 9—Local Government

9. to the Minister of Local Government: What has been the total departmental expenditure to date on Three Waters, and is he confident it has represented good value for money?

Our Government is setting up water services to make the $180 billion investment that is required to maintain and improve our infrastructure. This is to protect households from otherwise unaffordable costs. The reforms have been under way in earnest since 2020, and, as of mid-March, I have been advised the total departmental expenditure was just over $94 million. To the second part of the question, yes, because what’s not good value for money is maintaining a status quo that no local authority wants or can sustain; what’s not good value for money is leaving rural and provincial districts out in the cold, like what would happen under National’s proposal; and what’s not good value for money is leaving Kiwi households to face water bills that each year climb further beyond their means.

Simon Watts: How can he stand by that answer when, as of December 2022, $57 million has been spent on consultants and contractors for three waters, including over 100 consultants, filling day-to-day positions like personal assistants and data administrators?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Noting that I have written to the CEO of the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) outlining this Government’s expectation that consultants and contractors are used at a minimum, this Government does make no excuses for tackling the issues that this country faces. This country has to find $180 billion. New Zealanders have a clear choice: a policy from this Government that will save them rates over many, many years or putting their head in the sand and ignoring the issue doesn’t exist, like what the National Party have done for five years.

Simon Watts: Can he explain to the House, what value was derived from the $646 per hour paid to a Grant Thornton consultant?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: It’s very clear that when there is reform under way, certain skills that aren’t already in the department are required. It is quite clear, looking across the House, that experts in water services are few and far between. The point here is that this Government is investing in a system that will save ratepayers money. If the National Party dispute that, I have a very clear request of them: show us their numbers—so far, they haven’t.

Simon Watts: How does he justify DIA paying $133 per hour to contract a job description writer, and does he believe that that provided more or less value to the taxpayer than the position description specialist, who was paid $134 per hour?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: The value of this proposition is that it will lead to ratepayers paying less. That is a fact. It is a fact that has been established from councils’ own numbers. It is a fact that has been reviewed by Water Industry Commission for Scotland and peer reviewed twice. The National Party can try and pick at the margins, but what they have failed to show New Zealanders is what their plan is and how that will save ratepayers rates. They haven’t done that because they can’t.

Question No. 10—Police

10. to the Minister of Police: Is she concerned that increasing fees for a new firearms licence from $126.50 to $625.60, as proposed in the Arms Regulations: Review of Fees discussion document, will deter potential applicants and encourage the illegal use of firearms, and is she also concerned that increasing the firearms dealers licence fee from $204 to $2,710 annually will impact upon the safe use of firearms within the community?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. No, because decisions have not yet been made on setting fees for the licensing regime. Fees for a firearms licence haven’t changed in over two decades, during which time the Government has heavily subsidised the practice, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. I think taxpayers would expect this fee to be reviewed after that period of time. In saying this, I’m mindful that we need to have a system that is welcoming to law-abiding firearms users, and I’m committed to having a system that is fair and proportionate. I’ve been advised that Police have received over 6,000 submissions on the consultation document, and I look forward to reviewing these before taking any further decisions.

Nicole McKee: Can the Minister guarantee that proposed increases for visitors’ firearms licences from $25 to a maximum of $470 will not negatively impact upon the small businesses such as hunting guides who host international—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Oh, subsidising hunters?

Nicole McKee: —visitors?

SPEAKER: And whoever that was who was interrupting while that question was being asked needs to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: It is not our intention to encourage firearms licence holders to disengage from the firearms regulatory system, so fees need to be set at levels that neither deter applicants nor encourage retention of firearms without a licence. The Government needs to consider a wide range of options before deciding on the final fees for providing the services sought by licence holders.

Nicole McKee: Does the Minister recognise that the proposal to impose a $590 import fee for those returning home from overseas with a sporting firearm may bring about an end to New Zealanders competing and achieving in shooting sports internationally?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The Government needs to consider a range of options before deciding on the final fees for providing the services sought by licence holders. I look forward to receiving the submissions that have come in and the recommendations I will get from Police.

Nicole McKee: Will the Minister acknowledge that the need for Police to increase fees and to recover costs is a direct result of rushed and ill-thought-out firearms policy implemented by her Government in 2019 and 2020?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The fee has not increased since 1999. Set at $126 for 10 years, that works out to be $12.60 a year. Cabinet will consider submissions and recommendations from Police before determining what fees or firearm licensing should be. Other regulatory systems, such as dog control, have annual registration fees for the privilege of owning a dog, and there is much more involved in assessing if someone is fit and proper for what is involved in administering a firearm.

Question No. 11—Veterans

11. to the Minister for Veterans: What recognition and support is the Government giving to veterans as we look towards ANZAC Day?

on behalf of the Minister for Veterans: Benefit adjustments that came into effect on 1 April saw more than 5,300 people on a veterans pension, and their whānau, increase their pension by over $100 for a couple per fortnight and nearly $70 for individuals. Veterans’ Affairs, who have more than 20,000 clients, also pay out entitlements of $118 million each year, mostly for those who have service-related conditions, some of whom require rehabilitation and support because they cannot work.

Dan Rosewarne: What does Government do, through Veterans’ Affairs, to support the independence of our veterans?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Veterans’ Affairs also runs a veterans independence programme, which provides a range of services on a needs basis to help veterans stay independent in their own homes. More than 6,500 individuals receive more than 163,000 individual services each year, including lawnmowing and gardening, assistance with housework, and other services, which I know are greatly appreciated by the veterans concerned.

Dan Rosewarne: How does the Government support the commemoration of our veterans’ service?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Veterans’ Affairs manages a commemorative fund and in the current year has paid out tens of thousands of dollars in contributions to a variety of projects. This includes some memorial projects that will be unveiled on or around Anzac Day 2023, including the stand for a memorial gun in Ruatōria, plaques to commemorate service and recent deployments on a memorial archway in South Taranaki, and in support of the Remembrance Army with a project that will add 228 names of New Plymouth Boys’ High School servicemen to the memorial gates at the school. In addition, almost $140,000 has been paid out in the current year in contributions to support veterans to travel back to where they were deployed or for reunions with those they served with.

Dan Rosewarne: What is the Government doing to support the commemoration of Anzac Day in Gallipoli?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On 23 April, the New Zealand Defence Force Gallipoli contingent will deliver a ceremony of rededication and remembrance at what is known as the New Zealand Māori Pā site at the No 1 Outpost in Gallipoli. This ceremony will mark the installation of a plaque in Māori, Turkish, and English, commemorating the service of the New Zealand Maori Contingent at Gallipoli in 1915 and the call to action of the chaplain Captain Hēnare Te Wainohu, “Kia māia, kia toa”—be brave, be bold—before our brave soldiers advanced up Chunuk Bair. The plaque, signage, and access track have been developed in partnership with Māori, the Turkish Government, and the Turkish Gallipoli historical site directorate, and we are very appreciative of their support. I am sure the whole House would join with me in thanking all of our veterans, including the member who asked the question today, Dan Rosewarne, for the service that they have given—and indeed all active soldiers—and, to our fallen men and women as we get closer to Anzac Day, we will remember them, lest we forget.

Question No. 12—Defence

12. to the Minister of Defence: Does he stand by his statement that joining AUKUS “could not compromise our legal obligations and our moral commitment to nuclear-free”; if so, does he think that AUKUS is a threat to a nuclear-free and independent Pacific?

I stand by my full statement, which was we “would not compromise and could not compromise our legal obligations and our moral commitment to a nuclear-free Pacific.” To the second part of the member’s question, no.

Teanau Tuiono: Does he agree with the Minister of Foreign Affairs that “Our concern is not to see the militarisation of the Pacific, that the Treaty of Rarotonga [is] … upheld”; and, if so, why is New Zealand even considering joining AUKUS?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: A number of things. First of all, the agreement between Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom is a technology agreement. Secondly, both the Minister of Foreign Affairs—the Hon Nanaia Mahuta—and I agree that in the face of militarisation, particularly on the part of China, to the extent of an increase of their military capacity tenfold since 2000, means the circumstances in our region of the world are changing and we cannot ignore them. Finally, this country, with this Government, does have to think carefully about how we ensure we can protect the best interests not only of New Zealand but our Pacific neighbours, working alongside with them.

Teanau Tuiono: Does he agree with the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands that the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal goes against the Treaty of Rarotonga; and, if not, why not?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No, I don’t, because the Treaty of Rarotonga is very clear that it is about the prohibition of, and the removal of, nuclear weaponry from the South Pacific. It does not bear upon nuclear propulsion of vessels such as submarines or ships, and it is nuclear propulsion that Australia has signed up to under its AUKUS agreement.

Golriz Ghahraman: Does he agree with Auckland Peace Action that “Signing up to one part of AUKUS is joining a nuclear arms alliance”; if not, why not?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No, because that’s extremist and alarmist and, frankly, completely ridiculous.

Golriz Ghahraman: Does he agree with former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern that “The focus [of] … our region is on furthering the Pacific values and the focus that Pacific Island leaders have determined for themselves”; if so, does he believe a US-led military alliance which undermines the nuclear-free Pacific upholds Pacific values and independence?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not aware of a US-led military alliance that undermines the nuclear-free Pacific.

Golriz Ghahraman: Does AUKUS—a military partnership which undermines a nuclear-free Pacific—reflect his Government’s stated commitment to supporting Pacific leadership in facing the climate crisis and inequality, as the key challenges of our region?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: This Government is, and was, an early signatory and promoter of the Treaty of Rarotonga since 1985. We stand by that. It follows the adoption by this country of legislation—by a Labour Government—that keeps us nuclear free in all respects. We remain totally committed to that, as I think, actually, pretty much every New Zealander is. We work closely with our partners in the Pacific to make sure that their priorities, particularly their need for resilience against climate change, is a top priority for us. That is why we wanted to ensure that our New Zealand Defence Force remains equipped to respond as quickly as possible to them in their times of need, at a time when climate change is creating more frequent and more intense weather events.