Oral Questions

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

Yes.

Nicola Willis: Why won’t he inflation-adjust tax thresholds, given he now accepts the case for inflation adjustment of payments to superannuitants, beneficiaries, students, and others?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m not going to get into a speculative conversation about future decisions that a Government may take on tax. The Government has been clear, however, that we are not going to be adopting the type of tax cut policy that the National Party has been promoting, that would see the vast bulk of that money going to the highest-income New Zealanders.

Nicola Willis: Why, under his Government, do everyday tax-paying workers always come last?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: They don’t.

Nicola Willis: Well, does he think New Zealand workers earning an average wage and struggling to keep up with the prolonged cost of living crisis are being taxed too much?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I note that New Zealanders earning the average wage have seen their incomes increase significantly under this Government, something the National Party don’t seem to be able to decide whether they’re for or against.

Nicola Willis: Does he acknowledge that, in fact, real wages have fallen behind the cost of living, and that’s exactly why he had to do the make-up policies yesterday?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject that last part of the member’s question.

Nicola Willis: Isn’t it begging credibility for Ministers to claim the Government can’t afford tax reduction, when it can find billions of dollars down the back of the couch for other priorities?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.

Nicola Willis: Why did it take the Government this long to work out the Minister of Transport was committed to a host of wasteful spending projects, and how can New Zealanders have confidence in his Government’s prioritisation process, when even in the midst of a prolonged cost of living crisis Ministers were signing up for such wasteful spending?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: New Zealanders can have confidence in this Government, because we are absolutely focused on dealing with the cost of living crisis that’s in front of New Zealanders, and supporting New Zealanders through a significant natural disaster. That is absolutely our focus, and the announcements in recent days have absolutely highlighted that.

Nicola Willis: What does he think should be a higher priority: a childcare tax rebate of $75 a week for young families, or an extra $400 million for Government consulting and contracting arrangements?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Once again, the member seems to be highlighting the confusion that the National Party seem to have around consultants and contractors, because the member herself has both pledged to reduce the spending and cap it at its current level. So it’s still not clear exactly how the National Party would pay for the policy that they’ve already announced.

Nicola Willis: Wouldn’t it just be more efficient to adopt National’s policy programme, admit that his Government has been addicted to wasteful spending, and reduce taxes for working New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It would be interesting to know what National’s tax policy actually is, because it seems to change every time Nicola Willis does an interview on it.

SPEAKER: Question No. 2 in the name of—

David Seymour: Supplementary. Supplementary. Supplementary. Point of order.

SPEAKER: Sorry. Point of order—

David Seymour: I was calling for a supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Sorry. Supplementary, David Seymour.

David Seymour: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Prime Minister stand by Grant Robertson’s statement to the House on 22 November that “This side of the House is able to offer New Zealanders wages growing faster than inflation”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I absolutely stand by the Minister of Finance’s answers.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister think that the Minister of Finance was referring to wages before or after tax?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, the member might like to ask the Minister of Finance that question himself.

David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very down-the-line question about the Prime Minister’s opinion. To simply say, “Ask someone else” is not to address it; it doesn’t reveal anything about the Prime Minister’s thinking.

SPEAKER: It is an opinion and it is an answer.

David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister confirm that in 2022, inflation increased by 7.2 percent, but the average wage after tax increased by only 6.2 percent, and does he accept that one of the reasons wages after tax didn’t keep up with inflation last year is because his Government is taxing more?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I will go back and check the figures that the member has put before the House. But what I can say is that there is a synergy between the overall movement in wages, which was 7.2 percent; the rate of inflation, 7.2 percent; increases in the minimum wage, 7.2 percent—something that members opposite have opposed—and increases in benefits and superannuation, which also sits at 7.2 percent.

David Seymour: Did the Prime Minister notice that he left out of that list people who rely on actually working for an income to pay their bills in a cost of living crisis? Because, if he didn’t, they sure will.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That once again highlights the disdain that people on the other side of the House have for people who are on the minimum wage. They don’t seem to think that they work for a living, when in fact they work damn hard for a living, Mr Seymour.

David Seymour: Why didn’t the Government announce it will cut taxes for low and middle income earners so that their wages keep up with inflation, when he was very happy to announce, yesterday, that he’ll be increasing benefits, pensions, and student allowances to keep up with inflation?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the last part of the question, I’m absolutely proud of the announcements we made yesterday, which are normally made ahead of the 1 April changes, and they have been this time.

Question No. 2—Social Development and Employment

2. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What additional Government support will be available for individuals and families from 1 April?

From 1 April, the annual general adjustment will come into effect for beneficiaries, superannuitants, students, and working families. The annual general adjustment happens every year on 1 April and is designed to ensure that rates of income support do not fall behind inflation and/or wage growth. We know that we are dealing with a global cost of living crisis, and, therefore, this year, the rise in support is larger than most. Couples who receive New Zealand super and veteran’s pension will receive an extra $51.42 per week in the hand, while working-age people receiving a main benefit will see an increase of between $16.80 and $46.20, depending on the type of benefit and whether they are single or a couple. We know these lifts in income will make a big difference to many households.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What other assistance comes into force on 1 April?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: On 1 April, the Government’s changes to childcare assistance will take effect—this includes rises to the childcare subsidy and out-of-school care and recreation subsidy. This reverses a freeze on the income threshold for childcare assistance eligibility that the previous Government put in place in 2010. Our changes will mean 10,000 more children will be eligible for support. Two parents both working 40 hours per week on $26 per hour, with two children under five, will not have been eligible for childcare assistance previously, but, from 1 April, will now be eligible for $360 per week.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What changes to Working for Families come into effect on 1 April?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The inflation adjustment to the family tax credit will occur on 1 April. This provides extra relief for the majority of working families. This builds on our previous changes to the family tax credit. It means that a family with two children on a median family income, receiving Working for Families, is now receiving over $1,300 more a year since we took office. If they are also receiving the Best Start payment, that figure climbs to over $3,600 per year. Supporting New Zealand families with the cost of living is the top priority for the Government. This kind of targeted support reaches those who need it the most.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What is the overall effect of the Government’s changes since 2017?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This Government moved quickly when we first came into office. We introduced the Families Package and we have lifted benefit rates to historic levels, reversing and surpassing the cruel cuts of 1991. When adjusted for inflation, benefit levels are now higher than at any time since the 1940s. On average, a couple with children, on a benefit, are $256 per week better off than they were in 2017. There is still more work to do and we’re not shying away from putting families first and focusing on what matters most to New Zealanders, as we continue to deliver meaningful change in children’s and families’ lives—especially during these challenging times.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Minister aware that two-thirds of tertiary students regularly cannot afford the basics, and does she think that an extra maximum of $20 per week on the means-tested student allowance is adequate to bridge that gap?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As the Minister for Social Development, I do not have responsibility for policy for student allowances and student loans. The Ministry of Social Development does administer the student loans and student allowances.

Question No. 3—Infrastructure

3. to the Minister for Infrastructure: How many of the Infrastructure Reference Group projects approved for funding have been completed, and how many are due to complete construction in 2024 or later?

On 1 July 2020, the Government announced the Infrastructure Reference Group (IRG) programme to help kick-start the post-COVID rebuild by creating jobs and unlocking more than $5 billion worth of projects up and down New Zealand. The purpose of this programme was to create jobs and provide much-needed economic stimulus, as well as certainty for investors and private sector businesses at a time of incredible uncertainty. As of 30 January 2023, 82 of the 224 projects with funding agreements in place have been completed. I am advised that a further 86 projects are forecast to be completed by the end of 2023, and this will account for around 75 percent of the projects. A further 57 projects are forecast to be completed in 2024 or later.

Chris Bishop: Why are six of the alleged shovel-ready projects yet to begin construction, and how on earth can they be regarded as shovel-ready?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: There are four projects that have delays that have been talked about in terms of those. Many of those are outside of the control of the funding decisions that were made. If we have a look, for example, at the Marton Rail Hub: that has been appealed to the Environment Court, so we need to await the findings of that court. If we have a look at the Nelson port slipway, for example, this was only contracted in December 2022, due to protracted commercial negotiations. Likewise, the Kaipara stopbank enhancement did have a contract variation that was required. These were projects that were worked up during 2020, when the world was staring down the barrel of a construction sector with no work to do. There have been variations—and with $5 billion worth of infrastructure spend, there are four projects that have yet to be off the ground. But $1.41 billion of the $2.5 billion that was budgeted has been spent to date.

Chris Bishop: Why is the Government funding programmes—or projects—that are subject to, in the Minister’s own words, “protracted commercial negotiations” and “Environment Court appeals” before they can start, and why are they regarded as shovel-ready?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The member may one day find out that sometimes there are delays with infrastructure projects. And as his party, when in Government, found, there were programmes that failed to get off the ground. But I have seen a range of people around the country waxing lyrical around some of the IRG projects. I point to the Kōpū Marine Precinct project, when I saw a commentator say, “[The] project is going to be endearing, profitable and culturally advantageous to our district. … Today, [the] shovel ready project—and what will come from it—in many respects is a back to the future project—to a time when Kōpū was the hub of commerce”—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —sorry, and, of course, that was Scott Simpson.

SPEAKER: The Minister has completed the answer.

Chris Bishop: Why has the Government used shovel-ready money to fund the white elephant boondoggle that is Project Onslow, that, on the Government’s own time line—optimistic time line—is not due to be complete until 2030?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The funding that was put through the IRG projects is for a process called the New Zealand Battery Project. It is about making sure that we have a plan to deal with the electrification and the decarbonisation of New Zealand. The money that was allocated in there was never to build the battery, whichever of those options would be; it is to do the detailed long-term thinking that his party obviously does not understand needs to occur.

Chris Bishop: Is she confident that, of all the projects funded through the shovel-ready process selected by Ministers, those projects were the top projects recommended by the independent IRG reference group?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: There were 26 projects that came in later than the reference group process—of course, they all did go through a process and they went through Cabinet, and I can have confidence in those processes. If I look at one of those, the Awarua kaumātua housing project that was one of those 26, for example: last year, I had the privilege of going to open that project. They have been completed—and there are kaumātua living in those homes today because this Government had the foresight to invest in infrastructure.

Question No. 4—Social Development and Employment

4. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Are livable incomes and ending benefit sanctions “bread and butter” issues; if not, why not?

All Governments need to make choices, and, as the Prime Minister has said, the bread and butter issues affecting New Zealanders are our priority right now. At the end of last year, we announced the changes to the childcare subsidy as part of our review of childcare assistance. This will impact over 10,000 children. This policy sits alongside other Government decisions to support New Zealand families who have been impacted as global pressures impact inflation. These changes include minimum wage increases, half-price public transport fares, and the extension of the fuel subsidy. On 1 April, beneficiaries, superannuitants, and students will also see increases to their weekly incomes. This all makes a difference and is wide reaching. We are clearly lifting incomes, and have been for the last five years. The advice I received from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group was on adequate incomes, and we have certainly made significant progress. As for sanctions, we have ended those that impact children the most. Work has been paused on the other sanctions that do not have the wider reach of some of our other priority policies. However, I can reassure the member that, since becoming the Government, there has been a 79 percent drop in the number of sanctions that affect children.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree with the Children’s Commissioner, who said that benefit sanctions harm children; if not, what evidence does she have that it is not the case?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The two sanctions that we have already got rid of are the two sanctions that had the biggest impact on children, and so I’m very proud of the fact that we acted quickly to get rid of those. Some of the other sanctions, including sanctions pertaining to work obligations, are not things that we committed to getting rid of right from the beginning. We said that we would focus on the ones that were most punitive, but not all of them would go. We do want them to be a last resort. So, if we look at sanctions when they’re applied to work obligations, it’s been really important that as a Government we have invested in work-focused front-line staff so they can have those meaningful engagements with clients rather than resort to sanctions, and we’ve certainly seen the evidence of that working in the reduction in sanctions being applied.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What evidence does she have that the existing sanctions are not harming children?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We have seen a significant reduction in the number of sanctions being applied to families with children. We never committed to getting rid of all sanctions. Some of the sanctions that are still in place I certainly would like to revisit down the track, but they are not a priority for us right now. The changes that we’re attempting to make at the moment are the ones that have the biggest impact and are bread and butter for New Zealand families. That work on sanctions has been paused, and we will look at that in the future.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How many more children will have to go without access to food because they’re being sanctioned by the warrant to arrest sanction, which has increased under her Government?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I said, there has been a huge reduction in the number of sanctions that have been applied to families with children, and we moved quickly to get rid of two of the sanctions that most impacted on families with children. There is work to do—that has been paused at this present time—but it is on the medium to longer term work programme for the welfare overhaul.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she aware that the civil defence—

SPEAKER: Sorry to interrupt. I’ll give you an extra question. I don’t think that was addressed as well as it could have been.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Appreciate that. I was thinking of doing a point of order. Thank you. How can she be confident of the impact that the warrant to arrest sanction is having on children, when she hasn’t been able to produce evidence of the impact that those sanctions have on families?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There was a reduction in the last year, compared to the year before, on the number of sanctions applied for warrant to arrest. I have spoken about the warrant to arrest sanction in the past. It is not something that I am personally supportive of, but we have to make choices with regards to our policy programmes. Our actual Government agencies don’t have capacity to hit up every area we would like them to at once. What I’ve asked them to focus on are things like the Working for Families review, the childcare assistance review, making sure that we have the front-line work-focused case management that we need in place, and ensuring that they are working proactively with whānau.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she aware that the civil defence payment has not been updated for close to 20 years, and does she think it is adequate to support low-income families impacted by climate change - induced weather events?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The civil defence payment available for those that need access to things like food or bedding or clothing because of an event that has occurred, like we have seen recently, is double that of the hardship assistance support that they can access through the special needs grant. We have committed, moving forward as part of the welfare overhaul, to reviewing the grants that are in place, and that would have an impact, if there were to be changes, on the civil defence payment. But we’re not looking at changing the civil defence payment in isolation from other parts of the system.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Will she permanently index benefits to wages or inflation, whichever is higher, to better support low-income people receiving a main benefit; if not, why not?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Mr Speaker, I didn’t hear the first part of the question.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Will she permanently index benefits to wages or inflation, whichever is higher, to better support low-income people receiving a main benefit; if not, why not?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Over the last 23 years—actually, when we introduced the policy of indexing benefits to wages, there’d only been two times where inflation had outstripped wage growth. And then, in the last two years, because of what we have experienced with the Ukraine-Russia situation and everything else, that has occurred. That is why we made the change. To the member, it is something that I’m certainly keen on looking at. So no commitment at this point in time, but I am committed to exploring the work.

Question No. 5—Health

5. to the Minister of Health: Does she stand by all her statements and actions regarding wait times, including emergency department wait times?

Yes, in the context they were given.

Dr Shane Reti: When she said in answer to a primary question last week that the incorrect emergency department (ED) wait-time data was for November and December, isn’t it true that the published data actually had inaccuracies for every single month last year?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: There has been a revision to other parts of that data, and the correct data, I’m assured, is now available on the website. I want to make the important point here that this is not data collected from a laboratory or a clinical trial; it is administrative data collected in the day-to-day workings of the health system. As a result, there will be, from time to time, errors that need to be worked through with that. Te Whatu Ora has owned the mistake they have made with their calculations, and they have set up a review to identify the process that needs to be improved. That review will be led by Dr Dale Bramley and have an external, independent person on it.

Dr Shane Reti: Is the ED wait-time data for last year, that she said she had been using for ED decision-making, exactly the same as the new ED data that was published on Friday night?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Clearly, I was not using ED department data to make decisions last year, because I was not the Minister of Health.

Dr Shane Reti: Why doesn’t she know how many staff vacancies there are in emergency departments, as stated in answer to written questions?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: If I recall the written question in question, that matter related to—no; Mr Speaker, I would like the member to put on notice which question he is referring to. There are a number of questions on this data, and I’d like to be able to give him the appropriate answer.

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

Dr Shane Reti: Does she stand by her recent statement that “I would not put targets at the forefront of my health policy.”, and is this why the only target in the interim New Zealand health plan is a reduction in climate emissions?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I have made a number of targets in health already, and one of those is the very important target that New Zealand should be smoke-free by 2025. It’s a shame the member didn’t support us in that—one of the things that could have improved the health of New Zealanders substantially. Look, I understand there is a debate about targets in our health system, and the thing I would say is what I won’t do is what National Governments did, which is implement targets, go round the country thumping the table, demanding conforming to the targets, and yet not supplying the resource in order for people to meet the targets.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order.

Dr Shane Reti: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Point of order—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Oh, sorry, no, no—wait till the end.

SPEAKER: OK.

Dr Shane Reti: Have any inaccuracies been found in the other data that was removed from the Health New Zealand website last week; if so, what are those inaccuracies?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Te Whatu Ora is working through the process of quality assurance on those other targets and will publish them once they are confident.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Mr Speaker. Last week, you issued a ruling relating to the responsibility for Ministers in an administration. My understanding is that that ruling also applies to oral questions. Now, the Minister of Health, in one of the supplementary answers, said, “I wasn’t responsible because I wasn’t the Minister at that time.”—or words to that effect. The difficulty with that is that, actually, she is. Now, an appropriate answer could have been, “I don’t have that information. I could get it to the member asking the question.” But to simply excuse herself from responsibility for answering it because she hadn’t been the Minister in the months preceding December and November doesn’t seem to be within the Standing Orders.

Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, Mr Woodhouse was trying to recall something that had happened; that’s not quite what the question was. The question asked whether the member had used particular data last year. The member said that she hadn’t used that data last year. I think that is a different matter for responsibility, for example, for the actions of an agency in a period of time before the member was Minister—but it was a specific question about whether the Minister had used data, and she wasn’t the Minister at that time.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point—and I won’t prolong the discussion but I think it’s helpful—the question was to the Minister, not to the individual. Furthermore, the concession that data in November and December was wrong but hadn’t been relied on by the Minister of Health was also due to a period prior to when Dr Verrall became the Minister, so it’s kind of a dollar each way in that regard. So I would like you to review that and see whether or not the answer was within order.

SPEAKER: Thank you to the Hon Michael Woodhouse for raising the issue. You are correct, although the question could have been taken in two ways, I guess. I should have picked up on it myself. The question was whether the data had been used in making a decision, and the Minister answered for herself up until the point that she took control of the portfolio. But the question really still hasn’t been answered: whether or not that was an answer on behalf of the portfolio, and therefore, whether the former Minister made decisions based on that data. Given that, the Minister could answer now, and maybe the Minister knows or does not know—I don’t know. But, if the House is happy, we’ll see if the Minister can answer that.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: What I can say is that there has been a long-term understanding of this issue of pressure on our emergency departments, and work began under the previous Minister on that. As I have come in as a new Minister, I have set that as one of my top three priorities—includes the preparation for winter or, otherwise, emergency department wait-times.

Question No. 6—Housing

6. to the Minister of Housing: What reports has she seen on the performance of recently upgraded infrastructure during the recent Auckland floods?

There is pleasing evidence from Kāinga Ora that the investment in our Government house build programme and our Auckland neighbourhood programme performed as designed and mitigated against further flooding impacts. Our upgrades of existing neighbourhoods include boosting infrastructure like pipes and improving flood resilience. In Kāinga Ora’s Northcote development, the recently completed upgrade to Greenslade Reserve transformed a sports field into a stormwater retention basin with 12 million litres of water held back from the nearby town centre and surrounding homes, and draining overnight. Similarly, in the Roskill development, upgrades to Freeland Reserve—funded by the Government shovel-ready infrastructure fund—which was completed in 2022, acted as a detention wetland that mitigated stormwater for about two-thirds of the Roskill South neighbourhood, by capturing millions of litres of water.

Camilla Belich: What is still to be done to improve infrastructure and flood resilience in these large-scale housing developments?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: There is a lot more work to be done as upgraded neighbourhoods in Tāmaki, Northcote, Māngere, Oranga, and Roskill are built out, with more than a billion dollars in total infrastructure being spent, including more than half a billion dollars for stormwater and other flood mitigation works. The Northcote and Roskill large-scale developments are further along than other projects, so have seen the benefit of the upgrades made already. Had the flooding occurred five years ago, the flooding impacts on these neighbourhoods would have been much worse. In Māngere, where development is at an early stage with thousands of homes to be built in the coming years, more than $200 million is earmarked for flood mitigation work.

Camilla Belich: How is the Government contributing to infrastructure upgrades in these large-scale housing developments?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Our Government is making a significant investment in infrastructure upgrades to support the delivery of thousands of new homes across New Zealand. Through the $3.8 billion Housing Acceleration Fund, established in 2021, we’re investing to increase the pace, scale, diversity, and affordability of new housing supply for buyers and renters; $2.3 billion of this is set aside for the large-scale housing projects in Auckland, like the Roskill and Māngere development, as well as in Porirua in Wellington. A further $926 million from the $1 billion infrastructure acceleration fund has been allocated to projects across the country to support new or upgraded bulk infrastructure. The end result will be more homes and more resilient neighbourhoods, and the ability to unlock even more land for further housing development.

Camilla Belich: Does increasing housing density in major housing developments increase flood risk?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: When intensification is done right, with appropriate stormwater infrastructure and water-sensitive design, higher-density neighbourhoods experience the benefits of that. A good example is Hobsonville Point where thousands of homes have been built in the past decade and it has doubled the housing density of the average Auckland suburb. Despite recording some of the highest rainfall in the Auckland region during the flooding event, it did not suffer any significant flooding or damage. This proves that higher-density suburbs, designed well and at scale, can improve resilience.

Question No. 7—Transport

7. to the Minister of Transport: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that the Clean Car Upgrade scheme was, “going to make a very, very small contribution” to our emissions reductions, and which of his other policies, if any, are going to make a very small contribution to reducing emissions?

To the first part of the question, yes. The scheme was modelled to reduce emissions by approximately 4.5 kilotons over the period of the first emissions budget. By comparison, the Clean Car Discount and Standard were projected to deliver reductions around 35 times as large as the Clean Car Upgrade. I note, for the member’s benefit and the House’s benefit, that our Government’s response to climate change is focused on reducing emissions but also adaptation and ensuring an equitable transition away from fossil fuels for Kiwi households. And so, to the second part of the question, some policies, such as our extension of half-price public transport fares, will indeed have a fairly small impact on reducing emissions but have many other benefits, including supporting Kiwi households with cost of living pressures.

Simon Court: How many tonnes of emissions are the Clean Car Standard and Clean Car Discount policies estimated to avoid, and what will be the cost of avoiding those emissions?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: In the first three emissions budget period, the total emissions abatement of those two policies, the Clean Car Discount and Clean Car Upgrade, is approximately 2.5 megatons—that’s 2.5 million tonnes—across that period. The Clean Car Discount policy costs are net zero to the Crown, as it is funded by a repayable loan, and there are small overall costs for the administration of the Clean Car Standard. Both policies, when they have been assessed on a cost-benefit basis, are shown to save New Zealand money for every tonne of carbon that they reduce, because the country saves so much by having a cleaner vehicle fleet because we don’t need to bring in so much expensive foreign fuel.

Simon Court: Why has the Government dumped the Clean Car Upgrade scheme on the basis it’s not going to deliver bang for buck but not the Clean Car Standard or the Clean Car Discount, the costs and benefits of which to the taxpayer he can quantify but not to the people actually paying the bills?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I gave a very clear account of the costs and benefits of those policies in my previous answer, and I think the member might have been reading a pre-prepared question rather than responding to the information that was in front of him. If I can repeat again: the Clean Car Discount and Clean Car Standard policies will save 2.5 megatons of carbon emissions over the coming three emissions budget periods. The Clean Car Discount policy has no net costs to the Crown, and both policies, as per formal analysis that was provided as part of the regulatory impact process, are shown to have net savings to New Zealand for every tonne of carbon that we do not emit under that policy. These are some of the most efficient policies ever to reduce New Zealand’s carbon emissions, and it’s no surprise, therefore, that the ACT Party opposes them.

Simon Court: Does he stand by his refusal to allow tradies and orchardists whose utes were destroyed by Cyclone Gabrielle to avoid paying the thousands of dollars in taxes that they would have to under the Clean Car Discount scheme in order to replace their utes, and, if he does stand by that statement, on what planet is it compassionate to force cyclone victims to pay that tax when they’ve got no option of buying an electric ute?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I stand by the Government’s full response to the victims of Cyclone Gabrielle, including the significant support that we’re providing to communities, farmers, and businesses across that period. I also stand by our transport policies, which are designed to reduce the very emissions which are leading to the extreme weather events that are causing so much carnage. Unlike the ACT Party, our Government actually sees the bigger picture here, which is that we need to support communities that have been affected by catastrophic climate change, but we actually need to do something to reduce the emissions that caused the problem in the first place.

Simon Court: Well, in that case, is the Government still considering banning the importation of all internal combustion engine vehicles by 2030, and is this the Minister’s idea of a “bread and butter” Government?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Government is not currently considering that issue. And, in fact, the success of the Clean Car Discount and Clean Car Upgrade policies in cleaning up New Zealand’s fleet means that we are well on track to have one of the cleanest fleets in the world. The Clean Car Discount policy has shifted New Zealand from being one of the worst-performing countries in the world for low and zero emission vehicles to one of the best performing countries in the world for low and zero emission vehicles coming into our country—another climate-friendly policy opposed by the ACT Party and the National Party.

Question No. 8—Regional Development

8. to the Minister for Regional Development: What announcement has she made about the completion of regional development projects in Taupō?

I’m pleased to inform the House that this week, on 9 March, the Prime Minister and I were in Taupō to officially open the Taupō Town Centre Transformation project, the new Taupō Airport terminal, and the eastern arterial shared path. These three projects strengthen the economic resilience of Taupō and, of course, the wider region. This was pleasing because it was a Government-supported project but regionally led, and that regional leadership managed to deliver those three projects on time despite the multiple challenges from COVID, supply chain issues, and I commend them all for their work.

Tāmati Coffey: Why are these projects important for the Taupō region?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Taupō Airport is not just a gateway to the central North Island but it’s a lifeline utility in an emergency or crisis, with growing tourism and aviation businesses located around it, including a rescue helicopter. The new terminal is also three times larger than the old terminal, expanding capacity to keep both local people and businesses connected and to bring more people into the region. For the town centre transformation project, this has transformed the street and lane network, connecting the land to the lake and creating a quality place to attract people to spend time in the town centre, which will bring a range of social and economic benefits.

Tāmati Coffey: What economic benefits were there for Taupō during the construction of those projects?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: During COVID, we prioritised the creation of job retention, and over the course of these three projects, approximately 280 people were employed in the construction of those projects. These were co-investments in partnership with the Taupō District Council, its airport authority, local businesses, and the community. From those investments, nearly 90 percent of the total cost for the town centre project was spent on local businesses. These benefits will have long-lasting impacts for Taupō, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and the people of the wider region.

Tāmati Coffey: Why are these regional investments important for the whole economy?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: As this side of the House strongly believes, our regions are the backbone of our economy, and particularly when it comes to our export sector. The Government is continuing to deliver projects to make our regions even better places to live and to work. We’re committed to ensuring our regions have the infrastructure that they need to grow and to boost regional economies through genuine local partnerships. We will also use our experience from rolling out these kinds of regional development investments to shape our locally led recovery from Cyclone Gabrielle.

Question No. 9—Education

9. to the Minister of Education: What percentage of students were meeting curriculum expectations in maths at year 8 in 2022 according to e-asTTle data, and what percentage of students passed the math assessment in the second NCEA literacy and numeracy pilot last year?

The e-asTTle data for 2022 hasn’t been analysed yet and is not public. To the second part of the question, 64.1 percent of students overall passed the numeracy pilot in 2022, including 57.3 percent of those who sat the assessment in September.

Erica Stanford: Why isn’t math on the Government professional learning and development (PLD) priority list to support teachers, when the royal society report commissioned by this Government in 2021 found that nearly half of year 4 teachers said that they felt only moderately confident in teaching mathematics, and those teachers were not scheduling the subject as often, as a result?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Maths is actually very much a priority of this Government. We are finalising the curriculums in English, maths, and statistics at this point in time. From 2024, the common-practice model—meaning that consistency being taught from Kaitāia to Invercargill for maths—will be in place. It is currently being finalised and will go out to the sector. With that will be a very full support programme for our teachers as well, and we have also now developed a full set of progress steps for both literacy and maths.

Erica Stanford: How can it be that after 5½ years of her Government, and a comprehensive report recommending sustained PLD in math for all year 0 to 8 teachers, are we still got getting the PLD for our teachers in math that they need, and a whole cohort of primary school students have come and gone?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I will remind the member that, as I’ve said in the House before, last year we did an extensive PLD programme, called Just-in-Time Maths, for teachers within the sector. Again, we have put out the work and the expectations around the teaching of maths, and the development of the common-practice model—meaning that consistency of teaching, of knowing what to do, how to teach maths, when to teach it, for how long, will be absolutely evident to all our teachers. This is an area that we are putting a huge amount of effort into, and it’s one of our biggest priorities in the curriculum space.

Erica Stanford: Why has the Government still not mandated that students spend one hour on maths every day, as recommended by the 2021 royal society report, when, in 2019, just 45 percent of year 8s met curriculum expectation in math, according to National Monitoring Study of Student Achievement student achievement data?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Maths is a compulsory part of the New Zealand Curriculum. The nature of the current curriculum is relatively devolved, and the Government doesn’t currently prescribe hours or specific content of teacher; no Government has done that. We are changing that through the curriculum rewrite so it is very clear what must be taught and when to teach it, so that no learning is left to chance.

Question No. 10—Police

10. to the Minister of Police: What announcements has he made on significant police milestones?

Last week, I was delighted to showcase the results of the police’s Operation Cobalt. Introduced in June last year, Operation Cobalt focuses on disrupting unlawful gang behaviour and has had a great success in addressing serious offending and holding people who commit serious crimes to account. I’m extremely proud of the fantastic work the police have been doing to keep our community safe, building on the significant investment our Government has made in them.

Dr Emily Henderson: What are some of the measures of success of Operation Cobalt then?

Hon STUART NASH: Well, I’m delighted to inform the House that as of 2 March this year, police have seized over 300 firearms, conducted 945 searches under warrant, and—here’s the kicker—entered over 28,000 charges against over 7,000 gang members and associates across a number of crime types. It is great to see this level of enforcement activity by the police that helps keep our community safe.

Dr Emily Henderson: And what is the investment the Government has made in the police, Minister?

Hon STUART NASH: Record levels. As well as additional funding in Budget 2022—thank you, Minister of Finance—this Government has been giving police the tools to crack down on gangs since we came into office. This includes resources to recruit the 1,800 additional police officers we promised when I was last Minister of Police. Police are on track to deliver on this target, and since June 2017, we’ve added 1,687 new officers to the front line, and I’ve been to about 40 graduations.

Dr Emily Henderson: What was the additional investment in Budget 2022 there?

Hon STUART NASH: Well, thanks to the Minister of Finance, the Government allocated $562 million for law and order in Budget 2022 for work targeting and removing unlawful firearms off the streets and progressing firearm prohibition orders. The Government is committed to ensuring police have the resources to hold those who commit serious and violent crimes to account.

Question No. 11—Police

11. to the Minister of Police: What is the percentage increase in incidents of retail crime from 2021 to 2022, and were there over 100,000 incidents of retail crime last year?

Yes, there were over 100,000 instances of retail crime last year, and Police advise me that the increase is 39 percent—but isn’t it fantastic that we’ve made a record investment in police? We’ve delivered nearly 1,700 more police to hold the bad guys to account and keep our communities safe.

Hon Mark Mitchell: When the Minister says that the Government has had real success in combating retail crime, is a measure of that success a 39 percent increase in retail crime to over 100,000 incidents in a year?

Hon STUART NASH: Well, we realise we’ve got an issue with retail crime, but this is one of the things where, actually, technology drives outcomes. There’s a system called Auror, where we have made it so much easier for retailers to report crime to police. Let me give the member an example: in 2018, 10,845 retail crimes were reported through Auror; by 2022, that had increased to 69,000. But because we realised, Mr Mitchell, that this affects all our communities, we put in place the National Retail Investigation Support Unit, and we’ve implemented the Retail Crime Prevention Programme.

Hon Mark Mitchell: What does he say to the owners of a restaurant I visited over the weekend who were targeted by thieves last week, who say that the retail crime we are seeing is the same as what they left behind in South Africa?

Hon STUART NASH: Well, I’m not aware of that restaurant, but I would say that Police has invested millions of dollars in our Retail Crime Prevention Programme. As mentioned, we have the National Retail Investigation Support Unit. We are going really, really hard against those who commit retail crime, and thank goodness we have the ability to do so, because we’ve invested in 1,700 more police across the front line since we became Government.

Hon Mark Mitchell: What does the Minister say to the owner of the Pacific Superette in Auckland who is closing his superette for fear of being attacked again, and because the Government blames him for selling cigarettes?

Hon STUART NASH: I don’t think you will find anyone in this Government who blames any shopkeeper whatsoever for being attacked or robbed. That’s a terrible thing to say, Mr Mitchell. What I would say is that we’ve invested, on average, over $15,000 in every store that has come to us and asked police to help them prevent crime. As mentioned, Mr Mitchell, thank goodness we have 1,700 more officers to help solve these crimes, when you think that police numbers fell—police numbers fell—in the last three years of the previous National Government.

Question No. 12—Seniors

12. to the Minister for Seniors: How will older New Zealanders benefit from the Annual General Adjustment on 1 April?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced a cost of living package that will see around 1.4 million Kiwis benefit from increased income support to help with the cost of living. On 1 April, the Annual General Adjustment will also come into effect, and our seniors will receive a boost to their income. Couples on superannuation will get a fortnightly increase of $102.84, and a single person living alone will receive an additional $66.86. This is one of the largest ever increases to superannuation and will go a long way to support older New Zealanders with the cost of living pressures they face.

Terisa Ngobi: How will the 1 April increase for superannuation compare with previous increases?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: This will be one of the largest ever increases to superannuation. This year’s 7.2 percent rise in superannuation is up on the 5.9 percent increase from last year and will help those over 65 keep up with the cost of living pressures.

Terisa Ngobi: How many older New Zealanders will benefit from these changes?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The changes will come into effect on 1 April and will support around 880,000 older people receiving New Zealand superannuation and the veteran’s pension as well. As Minister for Seniors, it is my priority that we do as much as we can to support our seniors.

Terisa Ngobi: What other income support is available for older New Zealanders?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: This Government has known for some time now that older New Zealanders do face rising costs, particularly during those winter months. Early on in our time as Government, we implemented the winter energy payment. This payment will come into effect on 1 May. It means that single people on superannuation will receive an additional $20.46 a week during the winter months, while couples receive $31.82 over those winter months.