Oral Questions

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

Yes, particularly the changes that came into effect on 1 April that mean that 1.4 million New Zealanders are receiving a little bit of extra help with the cost of living.

Christopher Luxon: How does he reconcile his statement from February that “We ended last year with strong economic growth.” with the fact that the economy actually shrank at the end of last year?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Obviously, the numbers have been updated since I made that comment.

Christopher Luxon: Why has New Zealand just recorded its largest current account deficit on record?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Clearly, the current account deficit has been a challenge for New Zealand over a longer period of time—

Hon Grant Robertson: Decades.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Decades, in fact. I recall when we were sitting over there asking questions of the Government of the day over here on a similar issue around the current account deficit. It has been a challenge for New Zealand for some time, but, clearly, global economic conditions are having an impact.

Christopher Luxon: If it’s all global factors, then why have Kiwi exports grown at less than half the rate of Australia’s over the last two years?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are a range of things that have an impact on New Zealand’s exports. One of the things I’m very proud of about this Government is the work that we’ve done around trade, and, for example, the number of our exports covered by trade agreements that have been entered into by this Government has increased significantly. I think we’ve got a pretty proud track record when it comes to improving the trading conditions for New Zealand exporters.

Christopher Luxon: What steps is he taking to turn the current account deficit around, given warnings Standard & Poor’s is considering a credit rating downgrade if the current account deficit and the economy doesn’t recover?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, I think the member should have listened to my last question. I’m very proud of the track record of this Government when it comes to improving the conditions for our exporters. Unlike members on the other side who talk a big game when it comes to trade, this Government actually delivers.

Christopher Luxon: Why, then, has Australia hit peak inflation later and then retreated faster than New Zealand?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: New Zealand and Australian economies—whilst there are many similarities, there’s also many differences to it. When inflation was lower in Australia, they were decrying the fact that the Australians weren’t going to have the level of inflation that we had, and then their inflation peaked at a higher level than New Zealand’s.

Hon Member: Well, where was the answer in that?

Christopher Luxon: Yeah. How are Kiwis supposed to get ahead when, under his Government, food prices have increased by 26 percent, so a $200 grocery shop now costs more than $250?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I acknowledge that New Zealand families are finding it tough and that inflation is biting into household budgets. That is the reason that we put cost of living front and centre of the Government’s priorities.

Christopher Luxon: Hasn’t his Government’s decision to increase spending by $1 billion a week ensured inflation has remained higher for longer, crushing Kiwis with a prolonged cost of living crisis?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Oh, there he goes again. He’s saying that teachers don’t deserve a pay rise, nurses don’t deserve a pay rise, and police officers don’t deserve a pay rise and that we shouldn’t expand our health services to keep up with population growth. I note that in almost every policy announcement that he’s made so far, he wants to spend more money on something, but he doesn’t seem to be very clear about exactly how much more he wants to spend.

Christopher Luxon: Does he take any responsibility for rising interest rates that mean a family re-fixing a $400,000 mortgage fixed just two years ago is now on the hook for $300 extra a week in interest?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I do note that rising interest rates bite into household incomes. That is one of the reasons why the Government is very focused on the cost of living. Clearly, high levels of inflation are having an impact on interest rates.

David Seymour: Does he stand by Carmel Sepuloni’s statement made on his behalf last week relating to the email that got Stuart Nash fired in two hours: “Ministers have to sign off Official Information Act requests, and that Minister at the time made the decision that it wasn’t within scope.”, and, if so, what was the purpose of his office being involved in responding to that Official Information Act (OIA) request?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the last part of the question, my office wasn’t involved; my predecessor’s office was involved in that particular request. In answer to the first part of the question, yes, I expect all Ministers, when they are signing off OIA requests, to take responsibility for what they are signing.

David Seymour: Point of order. Surely the Prime Minister’s office is continuous throughout the Government, rather than changed each time there’s a new person in it.

SPEAKER: That had at least two legs to it, and the Prime Minister did address at least one of them.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point.

SPEAKER: In what way?

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, you’re absolutely right, but having addressed the second leg of the question, the answer does have to be within the Standing Orders, and, indeed, consistent with your ruling of a couple of weeks ago.

SPEAKER: My original ruling stands.

David Seymour: How will any new rules for lobbyists work if Ministers just refuse to release official information for two years, even when the Prime Minister’s office knew all about it?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The rules around increased transparency around lobbying are something that I hope we can reach a greater degree of bipartisan consensus about. There has not been support across the House for increased transparency around lobbying in the past. It would appear that there is now, and, therefore, I think we can make a lot of progress on it.

David Seymour: Will the Prime Minister confirm today that he will join other leaders in a cross-party effort to amend the Official Information Act by adding penalties for deliberate breaches of it, like 72 other countries have, as I wrote to him and requested just today?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m happy to read the member’s letter and come back to him in due course.

David Seymour: Will the Prime Minister confirm that he will work with other parties to add penalties for deliberate frustration of the Official Information Act or not?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That’s not something that the Government has made decisions on. In terms of our work around the Official Information Act, our priority has been to increase compliance with the Official Information Act, and the record will show that timeliness of OIA responses has improved under this Government, proactive publishing of Official Information Act requests has improved under this Government, and proactive release of information has improved—in fact, been put in place—under this Government, and continues to improve. The proactive release of ministerial diaries, something the previous Government never did, has been put in place under this Government. I think our track record is a good one.

David Seymour: Is the problem that his Government is guilty of not complying with the OIA, such as when Minister Kiri Allan texted Labour MPs asking them not to email Ministers in case it became discoverable under the OIA, and then ran special sessions to help people get around it; and is that not the reason why he’s talking about lobbying, because the real smoking gun is his own office’s interference with and non-compliance in the Official Information Act?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.

Question No. 2—Energy and Resources

2. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What action is the Government taking to decarbonise New Zealand’s economy?

The Government is working hard to decarbonise New Zealand’s economy, to reduce costs for consumers and businesses, and to meet our climate goals. This requires an integrated policy response from the Government, from partnering with businesses to electrify their operations through the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund (GIDI) to boosting the number of electric vehicles. And we’re making it easier to build the generation needed to power our electrified economy by removing consenting barriers through the reform of the Resource Management Act and the national policy statement (NPS) on renewable electricity generation. The NPS work is all but complete, and I’m pleased to say it will be released within the month. There’s plenty more work to do, but we’ve made good progress and we’ll continue to make the real action to decarbonise New Zealand through electrification.

Naisi Chen: How is the Government supporting the energy sector to deliver more renewable electricity generation?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Today, New Zealand’s electricity is 88 percent renewable, with a peak of 94.7 percent. According to the Electricity Authority, there are 2,609 gigawatt hours of new generation committed to in 2022. Transpower has received a record number of inquiries for connection: a total of 124 for this financial year. That’s double the previous year, and—for comparison—they received just five inquiries in 2018-19. However, we simply cannot just add more intermittent generations, such as wind and solar, without adding firming or baseload. To do so would not only show a complete lack of understanding of the energy sector but also would be a plan without a plan.

Naisi Chen: How is the Government stimulating demand for electricity as part of its plan to decarbonise the economy?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We all know that to electrify New Zealand, there must be both the supply and demand for renewable electricity. With thousands of megawatts of new renewable electricity generation in the pipeline, we need to give the private sector the confidence to progress these projects. That’s why we—this Government—is working with businesses to electrify their operations. From food processors to building product manufacturers, our partnerships through the GIDI fund will accelerate their decarbonisation journey through electrification. Industrial and process heat make up roughly a third of our energy emissions. Over the first three rounds, $63 million of GIDI funding has been allocated across 51 major industrial decarbonisation projects. This has catalysed over $100 million in private funding. These projects will increase demand for electricity while reducing emissions—the equivalent of taking 130,500 cars off the road.

SPEAKER: That answer was far too long. I expect the next one to not be as long.

Naisi Chen: What is the Government’s plan for a dry year?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In order to electrify New Zealand, you have to have a means of storing energy. If you were not to do so—as the recent Boston Consulting Group report has shown—the cost by 2050 would be $60 billion. That is why our Government is undertaking the New Zealand Battery Project to look at how we can do this.

Chris Bishop: Has the Minister seen the comments of Contact Energy, that the single biggest threat to new renewables is the Government’s Resource Management Act reforms and, quote, “We could kiss goodbye our decarbonisation goals if they proceed”, and will the Minister legislate to make sure that renewable projects are consented within one year?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I did see those comments, and of course, those comments were on an early stage of the bill. Our Government has been working constructively with the electricity and the energy sector to ensure we have been working through what issues need to be addressed in the forthcoming legislation. I suggest the member talks to some of his caucus members who are on the relevant select committee.

Question No. 3—Oceans and Fisheries

3. to the Acting Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: Does he think that fisheries management is ensuring sustainable fisheries and healthy and abundant marine life in New Zealand waters; if not, why not?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, I am confident New Zealand’s fisheries management supports the sustainable use of our fisheries resources and effectively manages the impacts of fishing. Our fish stocks are generally in good shape and we are progressing an extensive work programme to protect the health of our marine environment. However, there is always room for improvement.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Are single stock assessments fit for purpose when fish are part of an ecosystem and Aotearoa New Zealand has agreed to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which calls for the reversal of biodiversity decline?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Single species stock assessments aren’t the be-all and end-all but they are an important part of the system because when—if you do one of those assessments—you find a stock is depleted, you most certainly have to move to restore its abundance. None the less, there are other more ecosystem-wide issues such as maintaining the likes of lobster or crayfish stocks to ensure that you don’t have kina barrens, which have become unfortunately common off the East Coast of the upper North Island.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Is he concerned that the numbers of New Zealand sea lion—the world’s rarest sea lion—are falling, with trawl fishing for squid; if so, does he agree that an ecosystem approach is needed for future decisions on squid catch in New Zealand waters?

Hon DAVID PARKER: In respect of sea lion captures, there have been improved technologies deployed in recent years which have enabled sea lion captures to be largely avoided through exit routes for sea lions that get caught in a trawl. That has significantly reduced the number of sea lions which have been caught as bycatch.

Mark Cameron: Does he believe the Government’s roll-out of cameras on fishing vessels, which has imposed a $10 million cost on the fishing industry and a $68 million cost on taxpayers to install just 35 cameras since 2019, has been a success from the point of view of taxpayers?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The initial cameras on boats that were rolled out were put in the area where there were most likely to be captures of Māui dolphins, and that was appropriate. The Government has let a contract with, amongst others, Spark, to roll out cameras on boats more widely. There have been some delays in the implementation of that, but those issues are being worked through.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What advice, if any, has he received about the continued decline in the health of Tīkapa Moana, the Hauraki Gulf, and its potential contribution to widespread starvation amongst snapper?

Hon DAVID PARKER: In respect of the milky snapper issue that’s currently in the media, the fisheries division of the Ministry for Primary Industries are likely to conduct some research through the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research to try and establish what is the cause of that. In respect of the health of the Hauraki Gulf, it is true that there has been a long-term decline in the health of the Hauraki Gulf, which of course is situated next to New Zealand’s largest city, Auckland. The Sea Change or Hauraki Gulf plan is intended to remedy that.

Hon Eugenie Sage: What role does he see for a precautionary approach in helping restore the health of the Hauraki Gulf Tīkapa Moana and its snapper populations, and would such an approach involve phasing out bottom trawling and other bottom contact methods to protect the shellfish beds that are part of what snapper eat?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The member will be aware that when she was the Minister of Conservation in the last Labour - Green - New Zealand First Government, she approved of the Sea Change proposals, which did have the continuation of trawl corridors in parts of the Hauraki Gulf. The consultation that is now taking place is not as to whether or not there should be trawl corridors—that was dealt with in the member’s consultation—it’s where they should be.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Will he consider fast tracking work on proposed new marine protected areas in the Hauraki Gulf as a precautionary response to crayfish being functionally extinct, scallop populations collapsing, and widespread reports of snapper starving; and, if so, will he raise the level of marine protection to 30 percent of the marine park?

Hon DAVID PARKER: In respect of the scallop point, the member will be aware that I actually led the closure of those fisheries around New Zealand, sadly, because the scallop fishery has collapsed. In respect of crayfish issues off the East Coast of the North Island, I’ve already referenced that. But, no, we don’t have a plan to lift the marine protected areas to the percentage the member recommended in the Hauraki Gulf.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: What impact, if any, is the rising cost of living and rising interest rates having on New Zealanders and their families?

The cost of living and associated impacts have been tough on many New Zealand families. These impacts will differ from person to person and family to family. That’s why this Government has taken significant steps to continue helping them out. This includes the changes on 1 April that will assist 880,000 pensioners, who get a boost to their super, including: 5,000 veterans; 52,000 students seeing an increase in their allowance or loan living costs; a quarter of a million workers receiving a wage rise as the minimum wage is increased to $22.70; and 345,000 families better off through Working for Families. The year 2023 is a tough time for many New Zealand families, but all of these are meaningful improvements which will help them, and all of which the Opposition voted against.

Nicola Willis: Has the Minister considered that a New Zealander with an average outstanding mortgage balance of $482,000 who is re-fixing their mortgage this year to an interest rate roughly double what it was will need to find an extra $630 to service their mortgage every fortnight?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Circumstances will differ from case to case, depending on the type of loan that’s been taken out, but absolutely; there are people who are re-fixing their mortgages for whom there is a significant additional cost. That’s the reason why I am both proud of the things that we’ve done to support low and middle income families and also note that the average annual household income from wages and salaries increased by 8.7 percent in the year ending June 2022.

Nicola Willis: Is he concerned that a growing number of New Zealanders are unable to meet their mortgage payments, with those in arrears up 23 percent in the past year alone?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m always concerned about whether or not New Zealanders have got the resources they need to make ends meet. That’s why I’m pleased that wages have been keeping up with inflation and why I’m pleased that the Government has put more resources into supporting New Zealand families.

Nicola Willis: What is his explanation for why Australia’s inflation and interest rates are lower than New Zealand’s?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This has already been covered in the question—

Hon Member: No, it wasn’t.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —answered by the Prime Minister—well, it was—but, clearly, Australia’s inflation rate actually peaked higher than New Zealand’s. The economic cycle in Australia and New Zealand are in different places, but New Zealand’s economy is very well placed to deal with the situation we’re in. I would note that, as at December 2022, New Zealand had the 11th lowest inflation rate out of 38 OECD countries. That doesn’t make it any easier for people who are facing increased costs, but this is a global phenomenon.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister think the explanation he just gave will satisfy 5,000 nurses signing to work in Australia or the many patients missing them in their hospitals and GP clinics?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: You better ask the Prime Minister that.

David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t see how it’s addressing a question to say that “You should ask someone else that question.” I mean, if that’s addressing a question, then no one’s going to have to answer anything.

SPEAKER: When you go back and read Hansard, you’ll see why.

Nicola Willis: Is he aware that in addition to Australia’s inflation rate being lower than New Zealand’s today, it was also lower than New Zealand for nine out of 12 months last year; and isn’t it an indictment on his economic management when two-thirds of small and medium sized businesses polled in the most recent business monitor by MYOB say they are “dissatisfied” with his Government’s performance?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, there’s been a history of that particular monitor that the member might like to go over—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Yeah, they don’t like it.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —and have a look at relative performances. But, Mr Goldsmith, the only time I went in front was when you were the finance spokesperson. [Laughter]

SPEAKER: Order! Silence, please.

Nicola Willis: Is he concerned by statements made by Standard & Poor’s recently saying that New Zealand was “catching our attention” because of the “persistently weak and worsening current account position of the New Zealand sovereign, particularly given that it has been quite weak the last year or two…”, and the rating could come under pressure, and what urgent steps is the Minister taking to address this?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I would note—yes, I did see those comments—is that New Zealand is one of the few countries that during the COVID period had our credit rating increased. We will always continue to monitor New Zealand’s economy to ensure that we get the balance right. But I think you can see by the ratings that we have earned over recent years that New Zealand’s economy is seen in the world as well managed.

Hon Eugenie Sage: A point of order. Thank you. Mr Speaker. In Minister Parker’s answer to my previous questions, he said that I was part of the Government involved in releasing Revitalising the Gulf—Government action on the Sea Change Plan. That strategy, in response to the Sea Change - Tai Timu Tai Pari Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan was released in June 2021. It was during the term of the current Government.

SPEAKER: That’s not really a point of order, but however.

David Seymour: Does the Minister accept that after-tax incomes grew by an average of 6.2 percent last year compared with inflation that grew at 7.2 percent, and when will he do the obvious thing and cut taxes on working families so they can keep more of their own hard-earned money?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, as I said in my earlier answer, there’s a number of ways that we can measure where people are at in terms of their income, and the average annual household incomes from wages and salaries actually grew by 8.7 percent. When it comes to the second part of the question around the member’s policy on tax cuts, he’s utterly entitled to those ideas. On this side of the House, we know that it’s important to keep a balance here and make sure we actually look after our low and middle income New Zealanders. I know the member doesn’t think the people who earn the minimum wage count, but we do.

David Seymour: Does he accept that income taxes average 22 percent of all income earned, up from 20 percent when he first became finance Minister, and when will he do the obvious thing and cut taxes so families can keep more of their hard-earned money?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: When it comes to the way we compare taxes, I invite the member to take a look at the OECD’s tax wedge, which actually takes into account overall tax burden—in which situation New Zealand compares very well to the rest of the world. In answer to the second part of the question, what I said before.

Question No. 5—Education

5. to the Minister of Education: What reports has she seen on how the Government’s tutoring package is delivering for Māori and Pacific students?

We know the disruptions caused by COVID-19 have had a huge impact on the education of our young people, and that is why we have funded $20 million towards tutoring programmes to support students whose learning has been disrupted due to the pandemic. This included targeted programmes for Māori and Pacific students, and we are getting results. With hundreds of Māori and Pacific learners supported, each learner has gained an additional 22 to 25 credits on average as a result of these programmes. The programmes are based on research from the past two decades that tells us of the optimum learning environments for Māori and Pacific learners.

Camilla Belich: How were the tutoring programmes run, and what was delivered for Māori and Pacific students specifically?

Hon JAN TINETTI: A range of academic support was provided, including wānanga, noho marae, exam revision, one-on-one mentoring, tutoring, and homework centres. The ākonga support programme consisted of seven iwi-led initiatives focused on year 10 to 13 students and supported 1,143 Māori learners to progress in their NCEA aspirations. The Pacific learners support programme delivery to date has supported 863 Pacific learners through eight intensive support programmes and 20 weekly support programmes across Aotearoa New Zealand.

Camilla Belich: How has the tutoring package helped Māori and Pacific students attain NCEA?

Hon JAN TINETTI: For Māori students, a total of 19,297 credits have been gained by the students participating. For the Pacific learners support programme, 9,138 credits have been gained. And I’d like to note that, on average, Pacific learners had more than doubled their initial credits by the end of the programme—an amazing result.

Camilla Belich: What feedback has been received by participants of the programme?

Hon JAN TINETTI: We have had some wonderful feedback come through from students who have been part of the tutoring programmes. One participant stated, “I am very confident and have learnt more with NCEA, and I’m proud to be coming back.” The parent of another stated, “My daughter put down her success to these aspects of the programme: a relaxed environment, Pacific teachers were around to give her confidence.” Te Pou Oranga o Whakatōhea reported 85 percent of their students achieved NCEA level 1—the best result the college has had in years.

Question No. 6—Health

6. to the Minister of Health: Does she agree with Rob Campbell, former chair of Health NZ, that the health reforms are “half-baked” and that the Government should declare a “health crisis worthy of a crisis response”; if not, why not?

No, a new national health system will help more people get better services closer to home, tackle health inequalities by working in partnership with Māori, and help New Zealanders live longer, healthier lives. The need for reform is clear. Turning around under-resourcing and inequities will take years, but we make progress every day. Our health system has been through a crisis—it’s called a pandemic—and has delivered some of the best outcomes in the world. However, I acknowledge it continues to face significant pressures, and that’s why I’ve set priorities for Te Whatu Ora around winter preparedness, workforce, and wait-lists. Our national health system has the power to tackle the complex problems our system faces, and there is urgent work under way to do so.

Dr Shane Reti: Does she agree with the Prime Minister who, when asked, in response to Rob Campbell’s speech, “What part of the health reforms are actually working?”, gave elective surgery as an example, stating that elective surgery was working in a more productive way?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Yes, I do agree with that comment. Elective surgery is working in a more productive way. For example, we are no longer tolerating the way in which Māori would be bumped off waiting lists because of the systemic way in which they were ignored by our health system. We have a number of responses to the reset and restore task force that is under way, that it will deliver improved care.

Dr Shane Reti: What is her response to a Dunedin Hospital radiation oncologist who is reported as saying, “Don’t get cancer in Dunedin.” because the staffing crisis has forced the hospital to suspend services for people with brain tumours and gynaecological cancers?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I am concerned about the situation for radiation oncology and what I can say is that whereas that DHB might have been left, in the past, to deal with that situation individually, we now have a national health service that is coordinating across specialists around the country to make sure those people get the care they need.

Dr Shane Reti: Isn’t the previous chair of Health New Zealand, Rob Campbell, absolutely right when he says that the health reforms have been excessively focused on Wellington, who turned their backs on the citizens they serve?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Absolutely not, and I look at the Pae Ora legislation and the numerous avenues we are giving to community voice in the health system—for example, through the rural health strategy; for example, through iwi Māori partnership boards and the work of localities. It will be a better system for community and patient voice than we ever had.

Dr Shane Reti: Is it a good outcome for New Zealanders that after spending tens of millions of dollars on consultants to reform a health system that now has the most number of people ever on wait-lists, the previous chair states that the health reforms are half-baked and that the interim health plan is “highly compromised”?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Last week, that member was criticising the reforms for existing at all; this week he is on the side of someone who says they don’t go far enough. He should make up his mind.

Dr Shane Reti: What is her response to Rob Campbell’s statement that Health New Zealand “in its current form cannot deliver the level of radical change which is required” and “Inadequacy and things which are just plain wrong will persist”?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: If we want to go into all of Rob Campbell’s statements, then I think the matter that led to Mr Campbell’s having to leave his role—if I remind the member of that—was because he was taking pot-shots at that party. So, no, I do not believe that is the case at all. There needs to be a clear plan. I have set expectations as Minister that Te Whatu Ora is focused on winter, workforce, and wait-lists—the things that matter to New Zealand.

Question No. 7—Transport

7. to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about building a futureproofed transport network for Auckland?

Last week, the Prime Minister and I released five scenarios for a second Auckland Harbour crossing, including both bridge and tunnel options. Aucklanders and businesses have made it clear that the biggest barrier to the success of Auckland is persistent congestion after years of inaction. We’re on track to fix that. It’s vital that we have a harbour crossing that works for Aucklanders, reducing congestion and emissions by providing more transport choices for Auckland commuters. Additionally, on Saturday, I turned the first sod—along with the mayor—on the Eastern Busway, which will see massive savings in travel times between Botany and the central city. Together, these projects show that the Government is serious about delivering a linked-up, low-carbon transport network for the people of Auckland.

Shanan Halbert: What are the five scenarios that are being consulted on publicly for the second harbour crossing?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The five scenarios cater for all modes of travel. Each scenario will include a new walking and cycling link across the Waitematā, a new light-rail link that will connect Auckland light rail in the city centre and will build generations of resilience into State Highway 1. Some of the scenarios include new tunnels across the harbour through Northcote, Devonport, or the central motorway junction to Esmonde Road, and others include new bridges; some include a combination of both. The scenarios also include ways to connect growing residential and business hubs on the North Shore. I encourage all Aucklanders who are serious about these issues to look at the scenarios online and have their say.

Shanan Halbert: How will Aucklanders benefit from the Government bringing forward the delivery of a second harbour crossing?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The previous version of the Auckland Transport Alignment Plan that was put in place in 2016 planned for a second crossing in the 2040s. We don’t think that’s good enough for Aucklanders and we’re bringing work forward on the crossing so that construction can begin in 2029. Benefits of the project will include more transport choices for commuters, faster travel times, and increased resilience during extreme weather events. A new rapid transit connection from the city centre to the North Shore will fully integrate with other projects, including Auckland light rail and rapid transit to the north-west, to allow people to travel seamlessly across Auckland. Once we’ve received Aucklanders’ feedback, we’ll be confirming a preferred option by the middle of this year.

Shanan Halbert: What benefits will the Eastern Busway deliver for Aucklanders?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I was very pleased to help dig the first sod on the next stage of the Eastern Busway between Pakuranga and Botany on Sunday of this weekend. The project will deliver five kilometres of a new separated busway, five new bus stations, 20 minutes of commuter savings between Botany, town centre, and Britomart, and 12 kilometres of safe and separated walking and cycling routes. Overall, it will provide faster travel times and more reliable bus services for Auckland’s eastern suburbs. Along with our other investments, like Auckland light rail and the second harbour crossing, our investment in the Eastern Busway shows that our Government is committed to building a linked-up, low-carbon transport system for all Aucklanders, and it’s been very much welcomed by the good people of Pakuranga and Botany.

Question No. 8—Police

8. to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement, “my number one focus is to make sure New Zealanders feel safe”, and what percentage of youths who commit retail crime face court action?

Yes. As Minister of Police, I want to ensure that every New Zealander feels safe. Of the 481 youth or under-18s who’ve had proceedings against them for burglary offences in retail locations between February and October 2022, 234 have faced court action, 112 have had a family group conference, five have been referred to youth aid, 35 have had warnings, two have been referred to Te Pae Oranga, and 94 have not had further action taken against them. This highlights that our youth justice system aims to keep children and young people out of the formal criminal justice system. Steering young people away from a life of crime and ensuring that they don’t get caught up in the justice system increases the chances they will reach their full potential.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Were Police too slow to roll out the retail crime prevention fund?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The Police have gone a good job in terms of the retail crime prevention fund, and it has been promising to see that the uptake is now over 2,000 of those interventions that have taken place.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question was very clear, short, and concise: were Police too slow to roll out the retail crime prevention fund?

SPEAKER: I’m pretty sure the Minister said no.

Hon Mark Mitchell: If the Minister said no, then does she agree with the Prime Minister, who said in response to a question around the retail crime prevention fund, “police could have been faster [in] rolling that out,”?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: To be clear, what I said was that Police have rolled out 2,352, to be precise. Of the eligible stores across both programmes, which is the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment fog cannon scheme, there have been a large number of interventions in that space. As of 30 March 2023, there’s been a whole range of interventions provided, and I am pleased with the speed of the roll-out in both of those schemes.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m just seeking your guidance. Both the police Minister and the Prime Minister have been critical of the Police and their roll-out of the retail crime prevention fund. I have asked a question on notice, and then I’ve asked a very clear, succinct question to the Minister. They said that she answered that—I didn’t hear any answer to either of those questions.

SPEAKER: That was my interpretation of what I heard—I possibly should have said it had been addressed. But, in the way the Minister addressed it, it sounded like “no” to me.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Could Police have been faster?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The Prime Minister has noted that the initial roll-out was slow, and I tend to agree with that. But, now, as Minister of Police, in the time I have been in place, I am happy with the fact that 2,352 have been rolled out across New Zealand in addition to the fog cannon scheme, which has been rolling out incredibly well.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Is it fair for Labour politicians to blame the Police for the slow roll-out and the knee-jerk political reaction to a tsunami of retail offending, given that Police warned that it would take several months?

SPEAKER: The Minister’s not responsible for addressing what other members of Parliament say.

Question No. 9—Transport

9. to the Minister of Transport: How much money has been spent in total on transport policies that have been cancelled or re-scoped by this Government, and how much of this, if any, has been spent on consultants and contractors?

I’m advised that across the four transport policies that were cancelled or re-scoped as part of the reprioritisation of the Government’s work programme in March, approximately $4,040,000 was spent, of which approximately $1,807,000 was contractor or consultant spend. This reprioritisation has enabled approximately $600 million of savings to be realised, which have the potential to be invested in other priorities, particularly carbon emission reduction projects.

Simon Court: Can the Minister confirm that as at 28 February 2023, $726,000 had been spent on the cancelled clean car upgrade programme with not a single car upgraded, and that’s $287,000 more than what was reported in Stuff this morning?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I can refer the member back to my primary answer, which gave an overall cost for the programmes that we reprioritised. If the member wants confirmation of individual projects and he wants to approach my office, I’m happy to provide that.

Simon Court: Does the Minister stand by his statement that “Waka Kotahi expects further costs to be incurred over the coming months as the clean car upgrade programme is closed down.” and, if so, what is the total estimated amount to close down this programme which has delivered nothing?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: When programmes and projects are reprioritised there sometimes will be closing-out costs which have to be incurred; that will be worked through in the coming period in respect to this one. Overall, New Zealanders appreciate the fact that our Government took a hard-nosed look at our programme and has made reprioritisations in order to ensure that we get the best benefits for New Zealanders.

Simon Court: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t consider the Minister has addressed the question sufficiently. It was a question about how much will it cost to wind down the programme.

SPEAKER: It was addressed.

Simon Court: Can the Minister confirm that, as at 31 October 2002, he had spent $38 million on the now cancelled speed-limit reduction programme which less than a third of Kiwis supported; and what is the estimated amount to wind down this programme?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Waka Kotahi and local government are the agencies which are responsible for managing speed limits across the State highway and local roading network. They continue to have that role under statute. The Government has confirmed that there will be a focus on the 1 percent of roads where the highest level of harm occurs in Waka Kotahi’s future works. So it is wrong to say that that work is not continuing at all. As I said earlier on, the Government does believe that reprioritising—looking closely at our spending—is a valuable thing to do. Had the previous National-ACT Government done that a bit earlier they might not have spent $30 million building a sheep farm in the Saudi desert.

David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. There were two legs to the question: can he confirm $38 million spent and what will be the remaining expenditure to be wound up? He didn’t come close to addressing either of those; he just gave generalities about who is responsible for speed limits.

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

Simon Court: Why did the Minister think that spending $569 million on a “cash for clunkers” scheme to reduce emissions at a cost of up to $1.138 million a tonne—21,000 times more expensive than the emissions trading scheme—was a good idea in the first place?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Government has made investments and policy decisions to clean up New Zealand’s dirty vehicle fleet. We have made exceptional progress in that area and we have turned vehicles coming into New Zealand’s fleet from being some of the dirtiest vehicles on average in the world to being some of the cleanest vehicles in the world, on average, through our Clean Car Programme. The clean car upgrade that the member refers to was designed to ensure that lower-income New Zealanders were able to access the benefits of cleaner vehicles, but we’ve decided that there are better ways of achieving that outcome.

Simon Court: Would spending tens of millions of dollars on cancelled speed limit projects, social car leasing schemes, and “cash for clunkers” have been avoided if the Minister had listened to the sensible opposition from ACT to those policies in the first place?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No. In formulating the Government’s policy to reduce transport emissions, I don’t listen to modern-day climate deniers.

Question No. 10, Dr Anae Neru Leavasa—Oh, sorry. Point of order, David Seymour.

David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has completely failed to address the question. He spoke of “modern-day climate deniers”, but ACT actually has the most sensible climate policy in the whole Parliament.

SPEAKER: Yeah—no, we’ll call that one all, shall we, because the first word the Minister said was “No.”

Question No. 10—Health

10. to the Minister of Health: What progress is being made in vaccinating New Zealanders against COVID-19 and the flu?

On Saturday, we launched the latest phase of our COVID-19 and winter influenza vaccination campaign. Since 1 March, 45,269 COVID-19 booster vaccinations have gone ahead, with 24,588 more booked to happen. Since Saturday, 1 April, 11,733 people have already received their influenza vaccination. We know that vaccination is the best protection against the virus, and we can all play our part in staying well this winter.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: Why is it important that New Zealanders get vaccinated?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: We know that influenza can be a particularly serious disease for people with weakened immunity and older people, and around 500 New Zealanders die from flu annually. The flu vaccine reduces the likelihood of ending up in hospital if you get sick this winter, and vaccination against COVID-19 continues to be the best protection against the virus. We can all play a part in staying well this winter.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How will communities be involved in the vaccination campaign?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Involving our communities in the programme is critical for success. In Northland today, Hauora Hokianga is having an event for tamariki and whānau where flu; measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR); and COVID-19 boosters will be available. Manurewa Marae will be at the ASB Polyfest this week doing checks and offering COVID-19 and MMR vaccinations. And on Saturday, the Prime Minister and I were lucky enough to be at Queen Street Medical Centre in Upper Hutt, where the Prime Minister enjoyed the sausage sizzle, and I learnt that Elvis still lives. Te Whatu Ora is working with communities to scale up the vaccination campaign, including pop-up events, targeted activities to priority groups, and outreach to those who are eligible.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How are people able to book their vaccinations?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Booking your vaccination is easy, and the COVID19 bivalent remains free. We are running a comprehensive programme to encourage vaccination protection against both influenza and COVID, and targeting those audiences most at risk in the lead-up to winter. You can visit www.bookmyvaccine.nz or call 0800 28 29 26, or talk to your GP.

Question No. 11—Health (Māori Health)

11. to the Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health): Does he stand by his statement on the Therapeutic Products Bill that “Under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Crown has an obligation to actively protect rongoā Māori”; if not, why not?

Yes.

SPEAKER: The Minister hasn’t addressed—

Hon PEENI HENARE: Yes, I do stand by my statement.

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry—my mistake.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Oh, point of order. Do I get another question for that?

SPEAKER: No—ha, ha!

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Oh, gosh!

SPEAKER: That was my mistake.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: I tried. Does he agree with submissions made by Māori at the Health Committee that the Therapeutic Products Bill, and particularly clause 29, captures rongoā, and, if so, how will the rights and interests of Māori be protected in the bill?

Hon PEENI HENARE: The bill is under active consideration still by the committee. The Ministry of Health, Te Manatū Hauora, is yet to deliver their departmental report on that particular bill, and it is still under active consideration by this Government.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, e te Māngai. I don’t think the question was answered. The question was: does the Minister think that the Crown has actively protected rongoā Māori; if not, why not?

SPEAKER: I’ll let the member ask the question again.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Thank you. Does he agree with submissions made by Māori at the Health Committee that the Therapeutic Products Bill, in particular clause 29, captures rongoā, and, if so, how will the rights and interests of Māori be protected in the bill?

Hon PEENI HENARE: We encouraged many to submit on this particular bill, and there were lots of submissions made on this bill. This bill is still being actively considered by the select committee and also by this Government.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will the Minister, then, in his considering, exclude rongoā from clause 29 until the work stream has been completed and the Crown has actively protected rongoā Māori, and, if not, why not?

Hon PEENI HENARE: That is why we started the work stream on rongoā Māori announced last year in November, and we continue to support that particular work stream. I’ll continue to reiterate to the member and to this House that that particular bill is still under active consideration by this Government.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why did the Minister say in his statement that the rongoā work stream will “explore the interface of the Therapeutic Products Bill” to “identify any gaps and opportunities to protect rongoā Māori” if he is already guaranteeing to the House that the bill does not capture rongoā through the work streams?

Hon PEENI HENARE: I want to make this very clear to the member and to the House: when we announced the work stream for rongoā Māori, what we did was we wanted to make sure that those who are engaged in the sector, those who work in the sector, are able to create that pathway forward for themselves. I do want to reiterate, though, to this House and to the member that the Therapeutic Products Bill in its entirety is a bill that must pass. It does a number of other things that are making our health sector and the medicines fit for purpose—the legislation fit for purpose, today. So I stand by the commitment to support the rongoā work stream and continue to reiterate that this bill is under active consideration by the Government.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What specific changes will he make to the Therapeutic Products Bill to address the overwhelming concern from rongoā Māori practitioners, tohunga, and tangata w’enua across the board?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Once again, this bill is under active consideration by this Government. The committee will do the process that it’s been assigned to do and then Ministers and the Cabinet will continue to consider this particular bill, and we look forward to reporting back on that when that process is over.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, e te Māngai. So I just want to be clear of the answer to “what specific changes will you make to the therapeutics bill?” Was the answer, for clarity, nothing?

SPEAKER: You’ll have to check Hansard, but from my memory the question was definitely addressed, so there is no point of order.

Question No. 12—Rural Communities

12. to the Minister for Rural Communities: What recent reports has he seen on targeted support to rural communities to help them recover from Cyclone Gabrielle?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Cyclone Gabrielle’s impact on rural communities has been severe. Rural communities bore the brunt of the cyclone and the Government recognises this. There has been an extensive effort to reconnect isolated rural communities; however, there remain 43 farms with restricted access in Hawke’s Bay and Tairāwhiti. The Ministry for Primary Industries are maintaining contact with these farms and households, and work continues to return them to full access. I acknowledge these communities continue to do it tough. It is also important to acknowledge the hard work under way to provide support. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) have reported to me that Government support includes $51 million for recovery grants to help farmers, growers, and Māori land owners. MPI has received more than 5,900 applications for grants, with 3,249 applications having already been paid—a total of $36.5 million.

Anna Lorck: How is the Government helping ensure farmers get the supplies they need?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I’ve been advised that 105 tonnes of fencing and equipment have been delivered to cut-off rural communities through Operation Reach. Ten thousand bales of feed and more than 3,000 hectares of grazing have been donated through the National Feed Coordination Service since mid-February. This service was established alongside Federated Farmers. Six thousand and two hundred cattle and sheep have been moved off cut-off farms in Patoka and Tūtira in Hawke’s Bay as part of Operation Muster. A further 6,000 are booked in for the meat works and sale yards over the coming week, and three sets of portable cattle yards have been set up in northern Hawke’s Bay to help the cut-off farms reduce livestock numbers ahead of winter.

Anna Lorck: What support has been provided to rural support trusts in affected areas?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: The Government has provided $920,000 for rural support trusts for their work in response to Cyclone Gabrielle. Rural support trusts in Northland, North Auckland, Waikato, Coromandel, Bay of Plenty, Gisborne, Hawke’s Bay, the Tararua District and Wairarapa all received funding to provide support to help people access relevant services such as mental health and recovery grants, and co-ordinate local clean-up efforts. The work of rural support trusts is critical to the wellbeing of people in rural communities, and therefore I take this opportunity to thank them for all the work that they do.