Oral Questions

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

Most of them! Yes—except for the ones that I’ve corrected.

Christopher Luxon: Is it still Government policy to “reduce the reliance on expensive consultants and contractors, saving taxpayers many millions of dollars a year.”, as he promised in 2018?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It remains the Government’s position that the Public Service should be sparing in its use of consultants and contractors. Where there is a justified case for using them, then the Public Service should do that, but I do still continue to believe that there is too much use of consultants and contractors to do work that the core Public Service could do.

Christopher Luxon: Given that answer, when should taxpayers expect to see the “many millions of dollars” in savings, given consultants spend has ballooned to $1.7 billion on his watch?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’d encourage the member to have a look at more detail about the nature of that increase. Much of that was one-off and justified in the circumstances. Around a third of that expenditure, for example, is related to IT expenditure which, as the member will know, is a consultant-led industry. A significant proportion of it related to COVID19 - related expenses such as the roll-out of the vaccines, which the member and his party argued we didn’t do fast enough.

Christopher Luxon: When he told media this morning he had sent Government departments a memo on consultant spending “many times over the last five years”, did he ever stop and ask himself why his memos were being so blatantly ignored?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I know that one of the reasons that we’ve seen an increase in recent years was to do with the issues that I have just raised and it was justified in the sense that we have had to replace a number of IT legacy systems—that is a consultant-led industry. Another area of significant growth has been in building and construction where we are doing more capital works than the previous Government did, and I absolutely stand by that track record.

Christopher Luxon: Did Michael Wood get the memo when he spent $51 million on consultants for a cancelled bike bridge and $53 million on consultants for a non-existent light rail?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It’s clear that not everybody got the memo. For example, I’m aware that the chair of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council spent money employing consultants to write the one substantive report the council managed to come up with.

Christopher Luxon: Did Andrew Little get the memo when, according to Rob Campbell, he had over 200 comms staff but still had to call in expensive PR consultants to sell Government policy?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Health reforms are the biggest set of reforms to the health system in a generation. It is important that we’ve got the right people doing the right work.

Christopher Luxon: Did Chris Hipkins get the memo when he spent $21 million on consultants for the failed polytech reforms?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t regard the polytech reforms as failed, and, in fact, one of the reasons the Opposition might regard them as failed is that we have record numbers of New Zealanders in apprenticeships, which is something that they failed to do; in fact, the number of people in apprenticeships under National went down.

Christopher Luxon: Isn’t it the truth that the Government has hired an extra 14,000 public servants while in office, whose main job appears to be hiring, recruiting, managing, and paying for consultants?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member wants to refer to increased social workers who deal with some our most vulnerable children in that way; if he wants to refer to the extra work people working in Corrections do to ensure that we are doing a better job of rehabilitating prisoners; if he wants to talk about the people who work on the front line at the Ministry of Social Development getting people off benefits and into work in that way, then he could do that. If he wants to talk about the speech and language therapists that work directly with kids to improve their educational outcomes in that way, then of course he can continue to do that.

Question No. 2—Cyclone Recovery

2. to the Minister for Cyclone Recovery: What actions has the Government undertaken to support the recovery from recent extreme weather events?

The Government is continuing to take action quickly to provide certainty and assurance for those communities and regions affected by the devastating impact of the cyclone and of flooding. More than $400 million of additional support has been committed so far. Yesterday, we added $26 million to the fund that is successfully helping farmers and growers with post-cyclone clean-up, taking total primary sector support, to date, to $55 million. The full cost of the impact of the recent weather events is still to be determined. We do know that it will be considerable and there will be further significant resources needed to support New Zealanders through the response, recovery, and rebuild phases. The Government is committed to working with local communities to get affected families, farmers, and businesses back on their feet, and their regions moving.

Anna Lorck: What reports has he seen on support to assist the primary sector in response to the cyclone and flooding?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said, the additional $26 million boost announced yesterday will help farmers and growers re-establish their businesses, particularly in the wake of Cyclone Gabrielle. This is on top of the initial package of $25 million and the $4 million for rural community recovery funds that have been available. Some 3,128 applications have been received so far for grants and already more than $18.2 million has been paid out to farmers and growers.

Anna Lorck: How will the Government’s business support package assist small and medium sized businesses in response to the extreme weather events?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There is an additional $25 million support package which we announced last week to help businesses meet immediate costs, further assist with the clean-up, and boost business support and advice services. The grants of up to $40,000 per businesses will be delivered by local delivery partners as they know the people on the ground and are best placed to do this. We acknowledge that further allocations to businesses may be needed after this initial funding. The delivery partners are currently receiving applications, and as at this morning that stood at 1,966 applications.

Anna Lorck: What other support is available to businesses to support the recovery?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Along with the grant schemes, funding has been provided to the Employers and Manufacturers Association to extend the reach of their employer helpline. We’ve also provided additional support for the Regional Business Partner Network to increase the amount of business advice that they can offer. And the First Steps programme has been opened up and expanded so that mental health support can be provided to those on the ground who need it. We know that there are also larger businesses who are facing costs that go beyond what this initial emergency funding can support. We’re working directly with them to understand their needs and how we can support them, and we will have more to say on how we will help them get back on their feet soon.

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: New Zealand is in a strong financial position to support our country through these challenging times. This, in part, is thanks to the careful and prudent management of our books by this Government. We know, however, that the Crown accounts will change significantly in the coming months and years as the impact of the cyclone and flooding becomes clearer and our approach may need to change in response to this. If further resources are required, we are in a good position to manage that. The economy has been resilient in a challenging global environment, with unemployment near record lows and our debt level sits at 18.9 percent of GDP, well below our debt ceiling and among the lowest in the OECD.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

David Seymour: Can he assure the House that his Government never discussed using fear to scare New Zealanders into complying with COVID19 restrictions, and, if so, would he be comfortable with a journalist having all the former COVID19 Minister’s internal communications, just like journalist Isabel Oakeshott has former British health secretary Matt Hancock’s?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think it’s an absolutely ridiculous question. It was never discussed in any of the ministerial meetings that I was part of, or in any of the conversations that I had around our COVID19 response.

David Seymour: Will he then ask the former COVID19 Minister to publicly release all of his texts, WhatsApp messages, emails, memos, and other internal communications about COVID-19 to ensure New Zealanders that they did not discuss using fear to get New Zealanders to comply with COVID19 restrictions?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I can assure the member that the former Minister for COVID19 response, like all Government Ministers, will comply with their obligations under the Official Information Act.

David Seymour: Does he agree with the statement in the transport general policy statement that “many New Zealanders will need to adjust their behaviours in a variety of ways.”, and, if so, can he say which New Zealanders need to adjust which behaviours?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There is no question that we need to get serious about reducing our carbon emissions, and that is going to involve New Zealanders all thinking about how to reduce their own carbon emissions.

David Seymour: Was his transport Minister Michael Wood’s strongly promoting that general policy statement at 7 a.m. yesterday morning, then jamming it hard into reverse and backing down on the policy by 3 p.m., an example of a “New Zealander adjusting his behaviour in a variety of ways”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject the premise of the member’s question.

Hon Michael Wood: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Government has not, in fact, issued a Government policy statement on transport, nor has Cabinet, in fact, considered one at this stage?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member is absolutely correct.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister stand by the Minister of Education’s statement to Morning Report in September that he would—she would—absolutely not make tests easier to help students pass them, or the new Minister of Education’s statement today, asking “Is testing the best way to find out what our young people know? I would actually argue that not for every young person that is the case … I know that that is not the best way to find out what our young people know.”—which statement does the Prime Minister stand by?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Oh, I think the member is unduly simplifying both of the statements in question. There is no question that the former Minister of Education was absolutely committed to ensuring that we were raising standards when it came to issues around literacy and numeracy—a goal I know the current Minister of Education absolutely shares.

David Seymour: Does he agree with former education Minister Chris Hipkins, who said that the Government’s education policy was to “ensure our young people continue to have access to a world-class education,”; if so, does allowing students to use spellcheck because 66 percent of them failed a writing test fit with this Government’s aspirational vision of a world-class education?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member had listened to my previous answer rather than sticking to his script, he would know the answer to that question.

David Seymour: I don’t think the Prime Minister wants it. Which action does he most stand by: the Human Rights Commission’s campaign Give Nothing to Racism, or Creative New Zealand giving $107,000 to support somebody who says that they want to kill James Cook, his descendants, and “white men like him” with a pig-hunting knife because they too “might be thieves”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That’s a message—that’s a question for Creative New Zealand, who make those decisions independently of Government.

David Seymour: Is he aware that the Government appointed the Creative New Zealand board, who decided to fund that production, and, if he is, why shouldn’t the Government appoint board members committed to giving nothing to racism, too?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I am absolutely aware that the Government appointed that board, as all previous Governments did as well. It doesn’t mean that every Government endorses every decision that’s taken in the name of art.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement, “We have a responsibility as Government to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely”, and does he think all Government expenditure in the past five years has represented good value for money?

I do stand by that statement. In answer to the second part of the question, I’m proud, as Minister of Finance, to invest in the core public services that New Zealanders depend upon. This includes 10,000 new public housing places, 4,000 more nurses, 2,900 more teachers, while investing in schools and hospitals, and protecting the lives and livelihoods of New Zealanders in response to a once in a century event like COVID19. Our approach has also delivered, for New Zealand, record low unemployment, low public debt compared to countries that we normally compare ourselves with, and a larger economy than before COVID. The Government has also reprioritised and refocused spending as the circumstances require, ensuring we continue to be responsible managers of the Government’s finances. In particular, our decisive response to those affected by Cyclone Gabrielle has meant more than $400 million of funding has already been allocated to those most in need.

Nicola Willis: Did the Minister receive the memo the Prime Minister allegedly issued, urging constraint in public expenditure on consultants and contractors, and, if so, how much has been spent on consultants and contractors to help design the now shelved New Zealand income insurance scheme?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the second part of the question, if the member wants to put down a specific question like that, I can get it for her. I think the majority of the spending on the New Zealand income insurance scheme would have been funding to have the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and ACC do the work, but there may well have been some consultancy expenditure. In answer to the first part of the member’s question, as the Prime Minister has already indicated, those expectations are clear.

Nicola Willis: Why is the Minister of Finance not aware that the scheme he specifically urged be designed has so far cost New Zealand taxpayers $10.3 million worth of consultants and contractors; and how can that possibly represent good value for money when one of the first things the new Prime Minister did was to bin it?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The work on the New Zealand income insurance scheme, in the words of the Prime Minister, is important to make sure that we fill a gap in our social security system. I get it that the member doesn’t care about people who get made redundant and doesn’t care about people who lose their jobs through health conditions and disability. We will continue to fill that gap, but, as the Prime Minister has indicated, in the current economic environment we have chosen to deprioritise it.

Nicola Willis: Is the Minister aware that his own agency, the Treasury, in 2022 spent $8.2 million on consultants and is forecasting that this year—2023—it will up that considerably, to $12 million?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As has already been traversed in question time today, our expectation on Government agencies is that they use consultants when they need to and when they have to, and not when they don’t need to and they don’t have to. What I would also say to the member, though, is that it’s very easy for a Government not to spend money; that’s when it doesn’t do anything—that’s when it doesn’t address long-term issues like our water infrastructure; that’s when it doesn’t do the work to improve schools and hospitals; that’s when it doesn’t do the work to look after our transport networks. So, by all means, if the member wants to say that the National Party would never spend any money on consultants and contactors when they’re in office, do that, but that would be a continuation of a do-nothing National Government

Nicola Willis: Does the Minister consider the Government is getting good value from its spending on consultants and contractors when it seems that one of the markers of failure is just how big the bill for consultants is—for example, the TVNZ-RNZ merger, with a bill of $10 million, or the three waters scheme, fatally flawed, with a bill for $26 million so far?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m pleased the member raises the three waters scheme, because the member will be well aware that the kinds of issues being dealt with when it comes to three waters are ones where it is essential to bring in experts to do that. Again, I know that the member’s approach would be to completely ignore the quality of our water—would be to make sure that New Zealanders’ rates bills go higher than they need to. It’s completely possible to sit on your chuff and do nothing about water infrastructure. This Government is not prepared to do that.

Nicola Willis: Can the Minister see that it is very hard for New Zealanders who are struggling through a cost of living crisis to understand why their money should be spent on consultants for projects that the Government has now shelved, and is it the case, to borrow a phrase from the Prime Minister, that his party has now become “a consultant-driven industry”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the second part of your question, no. In answer to the first part of the question, we will continue to support New Zealanders through the cost of living crisis, with policies that I know the member opposes but that actually lift people’s incomes and lift people’s wages, and that will continue to be our priority. When we’re in Government for a period of time, from time to time there will be reprioritisation; there will be issues that need to be changed. The member might be familiar with a sheep farm in the Saudi desert! Not every piece of spending a Government does ends up quite the way you want it.

Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a document that is an Official Information Act response from ACC, confirming $10.3 million has so far been spent on consultants and contractors—

SPEAKER: And what’s the date on it?

Hon Member: Is it publicly available?

SPEAKER: I’ll deal with this—thank you. What’s the date on it, sorry?

Nicola Willis: The 3rd of March 2023.

SPEAKER: And is it publicly available?

Nicola Willis: I didn’t understand that to be the case, but it could be.

SPEAKER: Can anyone enlighten—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I’ve never seen it.

SPEAKER: OK. Well, I’ll put the leave. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It may be tabled.

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

Question No. 5—Oceans and Fisheries

5. to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: Is protecting more of Aotearoa New Zealand’s oceans from overfishing a priority of his; if not, why not?

Absolutely. Ensuring that New Zealand’s fish stocks are sustainable and our marine environment is healthy are both high priorities of mine.

Hon Eugenie Sage: What actions, if any, is he taking to ensure New Zealand fulfils its commitment to protecting 30 percent of the oceans by 2030 under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework agreed to by Government last December?

Hon STUART NASH: I have no doubt that member is well aware that we currently have about 9.5 percent of our territorial sea in marine reserves, and, in addition to that, we protect over 30 percent under a variety of protection measures.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Does he believe New Zealand needs to step up efforts on ocean protection in light of the recent international agreement to protect 30 percent of the high seas by 2030; if so, will he stop issuing permits for New Zealand vessels to bottom trawl in international waters in the South Pacific?

Hon STUART NASH: That isn’t a measure that I have considered, but I firmly believe that New Zealand’s global brand is wedded to the way that we fish our fisheries in a sustainable manner—it’s one of the reasons I’m a huge fan of putting cameras on fishing boats. It’s not just about the integrity of the catch; it’s about the brand value that we sell overseas.

Hon Eugenie Sage: In the light of his concern about Aotearoa New Zealand’s global brand, is he concerned that bottom trawling in New Zealand waters creates risks for our seafood exports to overseas markets, in the light of last year’s ban on importing fish caught in Māui dolphin habitat by the United States Court of International Trade, and, if not, why not?

Hon STUART NASH: The member is also well aware that there is a bottom trawling forum that’s been set up with environmental NGOs (ENGOs) and also representatives from the fishing industry. I have seen the recommendations; needless to say, they all agreed that things need to change, but they’re a little bit far apart in terms of their recommendations. In terms of the Māui dolphin ban, I was quite surprised with regard to that—and, no doubt, the former Minister of Conservation was herself, because I was the Minister of Fisheries and that member was the Minister of Conservation and we put a number of measures in place to protect the Māui dolphin habitat.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Will he act to protect our oceans for future generations and ban bottom trawling on sea mounts in our waters and, if not, why not, and when can we expect action on the recommendations of the group?

Hon STUART NASH: I’m yet to consider those recommendations. I have read them, but I need to respond. As mentioned, the forum set up did contain ENGOs, did contain the industry, there are a series of recommendations. In the end, they couldn’t agree, but they all agreed that things needed to change. I think that’s a very good start.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Can New Zealanders expect to see any progress before the election to update and replace our 50-year-old marine protected area legislation; if not, why not?

Hon STUART NASH: I’ll be meeting with the new Minister of Conservation, and we’ll be talking about a number of things. I’ve always been clear that I think it’s a priority to move forward with our marine protected areas, but whether we do that under legislation before the election is something for the Minister—probably the Minister of the House to consider.

Question No. 6—Health

6. to the Minister of Health: How many contracting or consulting arrangements has Te Whatu Ora made with contractors or consultants since 1 July 2022, and how many of these arrangements were for public relations or communications advice?

A number of health services are delivered under contracts, including all aged residential care services, primary care services, most laboratory services, and community health services. In addition, capital works projects engage contractors. However, in terms of Te Whatu Ora’s national functions, I am advised that up to 2 March 2023 it has commenced 343 new contractors or consultants since 1 July 2022. Of those, 26 new contractors or consultants since 1 July 2022 are for communications, engagement, and public relations activity in its national functions. Te Whatu Ora does not have available data on new district-level contracting or consulting arrangements and does not currently have a single payroll system or central register of consulting arrangements yet. I am advised that Te Whatu Ora has established a contractor and consultant workforce review to improve data on this workforce and is focused on decreasing spending on contractors and consultants.

Dr Shane Reti: Which is correct: the answer she has just given that there are 343 new national-level contract arrangements, or her answer to written question No. 43274 from a few weeks ago that there are 626 new national-level contracting arrangements?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I paid attention to the member’s question today and to its reference to arrangements made with contractors or consultants since 1 July 2022 to mean only brand-new contracting or consulting arrangements made by Te Whatu Ora in the time frame. The 343 does not include contracts which were already in place or given an extension.

Dr Shane Reti: Does she stand by her answer to written questions that the Ministry of Health has spent $21 million on consultants in just the first six months of the health reforms, and, if so, so can she name one of her health indicators that have improved for the $21 million?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The purpose of the health reforms was to reorientate our system towards one in which we can make sure that services are available locally, that there is no longer a postcode lottery for services, and where Māori health is elevated and pursued actively through Te Aka Whai Ora. Those are the goals of the reforms. During that time, the Ministry of Health made lots of progress on keeping the country safe from COVID, and on contact tracing monkeypox to eliminate outbreaks. The ongoing work with the reforms will bear fruit over time.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. That was a very interesting answer, but neither of the two legs of that supplementary question were answered. One was, “Can she confirm $21 million?” and “Can she point to a single health indicator that’s improved?” The long commentary did not address either of those legs.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I disagree—I disagree. I think the overall statement that the Minister did address the overall question. Now, if the member wants a specific answer: one leg.

Dr Shane Reti: How does she justify the $2.2 million within the Māori Health Authority budget this year just for PR consultants, that she stated in answer to written questions?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Te Aka Whai Ora is a new part of our health landscape. It has to make sure that the public understands what its job is to do—

Hon Grant Robertson: Especially with all the misinformation coming from over there.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: —and, indeed, with the misinformation that it is subject to. I’ve been pleased to be out with Te Aka Whai Ora in the community, drawing attention to the good work they’re doing.

Question No. 7—Transport

7. to the Minister of Transport: What recent reports has he seen regarding the roll-out of emergency Bailey bridges following Cyclone Gabrielle?

The Government has deployed and is looking to deploy Bailey bridges across 10 sites in the North Island to reconnect isolated communities impacted by Cyclone Gabrielle and the Auckland floods. Bailey bridges have already been installed at Rangitopuni Stream in Riverhead, Raparapahoe Stream in Te Puke, and Opoti Bridge in Wairoa. Design work and site preparation is under way for Bailey bridges to be installed at Rissington Bridge and Waikare River Bridge in Hastings, and Hikuwai No. 1 on State Highway 35 in Tai Rāwhiti. We’ll continue to work with local councils to identify where Bailey bridges could helpfully restore essential transportation links and are currently assessing the suitability of sites in Hawke’s Bay and Tai Rāwhiti for further Bailey bridges. The quick roll-out of these Bailey bridges has been enabled by the dedicated work of contractors on the front lines as well as the Government’s $250 million top-up to the National Land Transport Fund. I want to thank all of the road workers, engineers, and support staff, who have been on the ground to get these critical connections restored for our communities.

Shanan Halbert: Are there enough bridges in the country to meet the needs of affected communities?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Yes, there are. We have a number of bridges in reserve and will look to source more from overseas if required. Waka Kotahi are also still working through suitability assessments for potential sites to determine how many additional bridges and equipment may be needed, depending on individual site conditions.

Shanan Halbert: Where Bailey bridges aren’t the right solution for restoring a transport link, what other tools are available to reconnect communities?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Bailey bridges are only one of the tools that we’re using to reconnect communities in the short term. They’re not always the right solution. That’s why Waka Kotahi are working through a range of other options to help restore those connections, including diversion through private property, providing temporary single-lane access, and using speed or weight restrictions on existing bridges as an interim measure. As we work through suitability assessments, we’ll have a clearer idea of what resources are best suited to meet community needs, and at all times we’re working closely with local communities and local councils to prioritise their needs as we restore access.

Shanan Halbert: How does the roll-out of Bailey bridges figure in the Government’s broader plan for repairing transport networks in the response to the cyclone?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The scale of the damage in the rebuild means that it will take some time, so we’re tackling the rebuild in three stages. The first stage, and our very top priority right now, is getting lifeline roads open and reconnecting isolated communities. Once we’re confident all communities are reconnected and lifeline routes are open, we’ll move on to the second stage of the rebuild. This stage will be focused on getting more permanent solutions in place for affected areas. The final stage of the rebuild will be adding resilience into our transport network. We need our infrastructure to endure in an era of dramatic climate change, and after seeing the impact of the last few weeks on our transport network, we know there’s more work to do to ensure that it’s up to that challenge.

Question No. 8—Education

8. to the Minister of Education: Does she agree with the reported statistical analysis carried out by the New Zealand Council for Educational Research into the NCEA Literacy and Numeracy pilot that found that the assessments performed well, and does she stand by her statement in September that she is “absolutely not” considering making the tests easier?

Yes, and yes.

Erica Stanford: Why, then, just one month after she said she is “absolutely not” making the tests easier, did the Ministry of Education officials write to New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) requesting that they use easier words, fewer questions, and let students use a spellcheck?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Because I consider that—I expect that my officials consider all evidence that’s put in front of them. I also expect experts in their field would disagree on evidence and analysis from time to time. I expect robust discussions to happen between agencies in this area.

Erica Stanford: Is spelling a foundational literacy skill, and does allowing the use of spellcheck to assess basic, foundational literacy make the literacy test easier or harder?

Hon JAN TINETTI: The member is referring to some advice that was given through to a document. That is not advice that I have personally read. It may have been sent to my office in a no surprises before the release, but I have not personally seen that, so I cannot comment on it.

Erica Stanford: Given the answer that the Minister just gave to this House, shouldn’t she be aware of her officials’ advice going to NZQA, and who is running the Ministry of Education—is it her or her officials?

Hon JAN TINETTI: As I’ve said, I expect the experts to work through that information, to have those robust discussions. Final advice hasn’t come through to me at this stage. I await that further advice.

Question No. 9—Health

9. to the Minister of Health: How is the Government supporting mental wellbeing for people affected by the cyclone?

Last week, I announced an additional $3.2 million in reprioritised funding to support the immediate wellbeing needs of people impacted by Cyclone Gabrielle. The personal recovery for those who have lost loved ones, livelihoods, and homes to Cyclone Gabrielle is going to be incredibly tough. This Government will continue to stand alongside those in New Zealand experiencing hardship and they will make sure they’re not doing it alone.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What services will be available to people impacted by Cyclone Gabrielle?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The funding allows for an expansion of the All Sorts mental wellbeing campaign, which supports communities with tools to look after each other’s wellbeing. We’re bringing in a team of mental health workers to offer local support to those most impacted by the cyclone and Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority, is designing a Māori-led response to support Te Ao Māori mental wellbeing solutions.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What specific measures are being taken for isolated communities?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: We are supporting isolated communities in a number of ways. As well as free face-to-face services, we’re also supporting a range of free telehealth and digital services for those unable to travel to services. There have been pamphlets hand delivered, along with aid by civil defence in the worst-affected areas. The pamphlets include information on free wellbeing supports that are available, and wellbeing tips for those cut off from all communication. There is also additional mental health staff arriving in Hawke’s Bay and Tai Rāwhiti to take pressure off local providers and ensure that current and emerging needs are met.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How does this additional funding support the existing mental health programmes?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Over the last five years, we’ve built a primary mental healthcare system from the ground up. Over 2.6 million people are now covered through primary care providers and over 670,000 sessions have already been delivered. In Hawke’s Bay, since Cyclone Gabrielle, those working in the primary-care mental health service have been making proactive calls to people who are isolated or have long-term conditions, checking on welfare and normalising conversations about emotions and mental wellbeing.

Question No. 10—Transport

10. to the Minister of Transport: What reports, if any, has he seen on whether New Zealanders supported his draft Government Policy Statement which could have reprioritised annual road maintenance funding towards bus lanes and cycleways, and has he been advised that New Zealanders would prefer to see that money spent on repairing potholes across the State highway network?

In the first instance, I reject the characterisation in the member’s question. The Government has not issued a draft Government policy statement (GPS) on transport, Cabinet has not considered a draft Government policy statement on transport, and nor have officials even completed the exercise of writing a draft Government policy statement on transport for me to finalise and to send to Cabinet. Secondly, the member is wrong that the Government has or will reprioritise road maintenance investment. In fact, our Government has increased road maintenance investment by approximately 50 percent over the levels that were in place under the previous National-ACT Government. And, thirdly, I reject the member’s view that our transport system should not invest in transport choices for New Zealanders, such as the Northwestern Busway Improvements that member has previously expressed support for. In a climate crisis, we need to invest in repairing the network after the devastating storms recently, we need to build a resilient network for the future, but we also have to invest in the choices that will help to reduce carbon emissions in a climate crisis.

Simon Court: Why, then, at 7 a.m. on Monday, did he defend the plan to reprioritise up to $2 billion per year of road maintenance funding into cycleways and bus lanes at the expense of car parks and traffic lanes but then announce at 2 p.m. the plan would instead focus on resilience?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The member is entirely mischaracterising my comments. The documents that the member is referring to were guidance which was sent to local government in late 2022, which set out key Government priorities as we move into the Government policy statement period of consideration in 2023. That included a strong focus on maintenance, it included reducing emissions, and it included a focus on resilience. The member is probably aware that in January and February of 2023, large parts of the North Island experienced devastating weather events which have caused huge damage to the transport network. We will invest through the GPS in doing all of the things that are important. We will invest in rebuilding that network, we will continue to increase our maintenance, but we will also invest in those measures which will reduce our emissions. I know for some on that side of the House, taking action on climate change is not something that they support, but it’s something that our Government is committed to.

Simon Court: Was it the effects of Auckland floods and Cyclone Gabrielle that led to the Minister realising that transport network resilience was important enough to do a U-turn on his draft GPS, or was it the overwhelming public rejection of his attempt to force people out of their cars in the hours after his appearance on Mike Hosking’s breakfast show that led to the U-turn?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The rhetoric from the member in his question and some others at this time, as we are committed to rebuilding the transport networks of devastated areas, in which they set up a false choice between supporting the recovery in regional New Zealand and investing in climate-friendly infrastructure is a false choice. It is ignorant of the challenge that we face in respect of reducing our emissions, it is divisive, and it is not one that will find favour from New Zealanders. New Zealanders expect us to invest in restoring the network. That’s why we invested $250 million to make sure that we get road and rail connections restored. But New Zealanders also expect us to look to the future and invest in reducing our emissions so that our kids and grandkids don’t face more devastating events like the ones we’ve just experienced.

Simon Court: Was the Minister aware that Waka Kotahi in 2020 published a document identifying 40 “extreme” and 143 “major” resilience risks to the State highway network, and, if so, why does he prioritise the ideological projects like an Auckland Harbour bike bridge, light rail, and forcing people out of cars and on to cycles and walking?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Once again, the member sets up a false choice between investing in a resilient network and investing in climate-friendly infrastructure. I am certainly aware of that information provided by Waka Kotahi and that is why, as I said, our Government has increased investment in the maintenance of our network by 50 percent. Between 2016, 2017, and 2021, we increased investment in State highway maintenance in the Gisborne area by 90 percent, in the Hawke’s Bay by 62 percent, and in Northland by 117 percent. But at the same time, we’ll take the advice from Waka Kotahi, the independent Climate Change Commission, and others that we urgently need to give people transport choices, to reduce congestion and emissions in our growing urban centres. Again, I note that the member when it suits him supports investments like the Northwestern Busway Improvements, but then for the sake of cheap politics sets up this false choice in this discussion.

Simon Court: Is the Minister aware that ACT has published 15 Urgent Ideas for Recovery from Cyclone Gabrielle, and will he commit to using this guide to come up with some ideas to reprioritise funding towards, rather than away from, resilience in the transport network?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I am certainly aware of that document and some of the ideas within it. One that I am aware of is the proposal to reduce the real wages of minimum wage workers, and if the other ideas are as stupid and callous as that I won’t be paying it any attention at all.

Simon Court: Point of order. The question was quite clear: is the Minister going to commit to reprioritising funding towards, rather than away from, a safe and efficient transport system, as described in this document?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to the point of order?

SPEAKER: No, I don’t need that. No, you are the master of your own—the answer. You brought in the document and the Minister responded to it.

Question No. 11—Statistics

11. to the Minister of Statistics: What actions has the Government taken to ensure that Census 2023 meets its goals and objectives?

Today is census day. Our five-yearly census is taking place this month, and we aim to count everyone who is in New Zealand on the night of 7 March 2023. This year, for this census, Government has doubled the number of census collectors, with more assistance to complete the census. Census collectors will be employed for longer, so doing more with more people. Before census day, 44 percent of all dwellings have received paper forms. There is more assistance to complete census forms, with 30 percent of household support at or over the doorstep to complete census forms. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Sorry to interrupt. Yeah, I wanted to hear the answer to this, so dial it back.

David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think what some members were pointing it out is that a member was apparently videoing or photographing the Minister giving the answer, which I thought was in contradiction of Standing Orders.

SPEAKER: Well it is, but that’s not the point of order that I just—sorry, the issue that I just dealt with. So what is your point?

David Seymour: I was just trying to be helpful, Mr Speaker. There was a member apparently videoing the answer being given by the Minister, and I think that’s what members were barracking about: trying to draw to your attention to it without disrupting the question and answer.

SPEAKER: OK. Is there a member who was filming during the answer of that question?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Photographing.

SPEAKER: Pardon?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Photographing.

SPEAKER: Photographing. And you know the rules, are you going to delete them now?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Sure. And I apologise.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: I’m delighted to see the level of engagement with this question, and, in fact, that’s something we’ve done in Census 2023. There is much more engagement with communities to support awareness and participation in the census. And we are focused on working directly with community and Treaty partners to help deliver the census. As my census badge says, “Tātau tātou—All of us count”. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Supplementaries are heard in silence.

Naisi Chen: What is different for Māori in this year’s census?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: This year, in some areas of the country, the collection of census data is being led by iwi. In Te Tai Tokerau, Tai Rāwhiti, and with Te Whānau-ā-Apanui in the Bay of Plenty, data will be collected by iwi and shared with the census team. And it will be easier for all Māori to identify iwi affiliation with a new iwi-affiliation map, and there are twice as many census engagement staff than there were in 2018, with more than half being Māori.

Naisi Chen: What is being done to ensure minority groups are counted?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: The census team is holding assisted-completion events, going out into libraries and community halls and attending community events to help people complete their census forms. Special events have been held for particular communities, such as a community event for young disabled people in Takapuna last week and a gathering for the Kiribati community in Auckland.

Naisi Chen: When can people do the census?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: This year’s census has been open since 9 February, and over 1.5 million individual forms have already been submitted. And, of course, there are plenty of people who, rather than doing in advance, like to do the census actually on census day—that is today. So anyone can do the census anytime from now. And the important thing is that when people do the census, they base it on where they are tonight, 7 March.

Naisi Chen: What impacts have the Auckland anniversary weekend floods and Cyclone Gabrielle had on the census?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: The extreme weather events have had a significant effect on Census 2023. Census activity has gone ahead as planned in most parts of the country, but in areas that have been deeply affected, dispatching census packs has been delayed until communities are ready to receive them. The post-census collection period has been extended, and extra help is being put into these areas to ensure that people are assisted to complete the census.

Simon Watts: How does Statistics New Zealand plan to reconcile the data from the duplicate census papers sent to over 1.5 million New Zealanders; and does she believe this will affect the census data quality?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Of course, each census pack contains multiple copies of the census form in order that multiple members of a household may complete the census. The member, however, may have been referring to the second letter that was sent to many households to remind them to complete the census. This was done because, in field testing in 2022, it was found there was a much greater response rate from households if a second reminder letter was sent.

Question No. 12—Transport

12. to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by his proposal which could divert road maintenance funding to building cycleways; if not, why not?

The Government has not, and does not intend to divert road maintenance funding. As I’ve already said in the House this afternoon, our Government has, in fact, increased road maintenance funding by 50 percent after it was frozen for 8 years under the previous National-Act Government. I’ll note again that we’ve increased State highway maintenance funding by 90 percent in Gisborne, 62 percent in Hawke’s Bay, and 117 percent in Northland, and I expect us to continue to increase levels of investment in State highway maintenance over the coming years.

Simeon Brown: What happened yesterday between 7.05 a.m., when he was defending the Government’s plan to use road maintenance funds to build cycleways, and 4 p.m., when he was forced to publicly abandon his plans?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I reject the multiple assertions in the member’s question. What the member is referring to are longstanding requests from local government, and from communities, in fact, but the Government tries to get better bang for its buck out of its transport investment. For example, if a piece of maintenance work is being done on a piece of State highway, but we know that at the same time that piece of State highway should have additional safety infrastructure such as side or median barriers, it makes sense to use that maintenance programme to also invest in the safety infrastructure—something that hasn’t happened to date. The same can apply to, for example, investing in public transport infrastructure in growing areas at the same time as we are doing maintenance work. Most people will just call that “common sense”.

Simeon Brown: Did he receive a memo from the Prime Minister stating that his proposal to divert road maintenance funding to build cycleways and bus lanes was no longer compatible with the Prime Minister’s intention, and, if so, when did he receive it, or is it still in the bike bridge?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No, but I have seen a memo from Waka Kotahi warning that the eight years of frozen maintenance funding under the previous National Government was leading to a significant deprivation of the State highway network.

Simeon Brown: Is it correct that the price that the Minister had to pay to get Chris Hipkins to support his $30 billion Auckland Light Rail Project was that he would be kept out of the loop on transport funding in other areas?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: At a time when the country expects us to make long-sighted decisions to build a resilient, low-carbon transport network, I would implore all members to engage in that discussion with seriousness. There are opportunities for debates about relative priorities within the system, but the member’s consistent approach of just playing cheap politics with our transport system does him and his party no favours and does not advance the debate. I also note that that member, when it suits him, supports Government investment in public transport, such as the Eastern Busway we’re building to his electorate, but seems to want to stop it from happening in any other part of the country.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Mr Speaker, it appeared—in answer to the second supplementary question—that the Minister was quoting from an official document; if so, under Standing Orders, it would be appropriate to have that document tabled.

SPEAKER: Can the Minister confirm whether or not he was?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Just to seek clarity, is that in the previous supplementary question, where I referred to a memo from Waka Kotahi? Yes, I’m happy to table that in accordance with the usual procedures.

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