Oral Questions

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

Absolutely, and including yesterday’s announcement that this Government will finally hold Kāinga Ora (KO) tenants who are threatening, abusive, and violent towards their neighbours to account for their actions. Our Government believes in rights and responsibilities, so if you contribute to a culture of intimidation and abuse, it’s time to change your behaviour, and if you don’t, you may not keep your taxpayer-funded State house. There are just far too many families on the wait-list who would respect that property and respect their neighbours to just privilege those current KO tenants who wage a war of abuse in the community. It’s not right, and I agree with the member when he said that after six years in Government, he didn’t do enough to crack down on unruly tenants. Well, the good news is enough is enough. This Government was elected to change, and we’re going to do exactly that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the Deputy Prime Minister correct that the Government has a $5.6 billion Budget shortfall and that there is “a huge gap” in its pre-election costings?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I can tell you I’m not going to take any lectures from that member about economic management. That was a Government that was characterised by spending more, taxing more, borrowing more, and we heard from the new finance spokesperson they want to continue to do more of it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very straightforward question as to whether a statement by the current Deputy Prime Minister was correct. It had nothing to do with the previous Government at all.

SPEAKER: Yes, that’s true. It could’ve been answered with one word and then perhaps some elaboration. The Prime Minister might like to have another go at that.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we’ve inherited a struggling economy from the previous Government’s economic mismanagement, and we’ve got some big fiscal challenges ahead of us, but we’re the Government that’s going to fix it. We’ll do it; that’s what we always do, and we’re going to clean up after your last Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the IRD correct that his Government’s proposed tax on offshore online casino operators will raise $155 million over four years, or are the “rock-solid” costings that he and Nicola Willis produced correct, suggesting the change will bring $716 million of revenue over the same period—a difference of over $500 million?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I can reassure the member about is that this is a Government that’s going to give tax relief to working New Zealanders, low and middle income workers who actually deserve a tax break after 14 years of not getting one, particularly from that previous Government. That’s what we’re going to deliver for them.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which numbers are correct: his rock-solid estimate of the savings that his cuts to benefit adjustments will make, or the latest official advice that they’ll save $1.3 billion less than he promised before the election?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I can tell the member the numbers that we’re not going to be doing. We’re not going to increase Government spending by 84 percent. We’re not going to hire 16,000 more public servants. We’re not going to increase Government debt from $5 billion to $100 billion and actually have nothing to show for it. We’re a Government that’s going to fix this economy, we’re going to grow the economy, give people tax relief, and ensure there’s a culture of fiscal discipline.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, which numbers are correct: his rock-solid pre-election estimate of the cost of tax cuts for landlords or the latest official advice that they will cost $800 million more than he promised before the election?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think what’s great is we care about renters, a group that the Labour Party used to care about a lot. Actually, we’re increasing the supply of rental properties, we’re lowering costs that have just been passed through to renters—because under that Government, average rents went up $170 a week. That’s not going to happen under our Government. We want downward pressure on rents, not upward pressure.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did he claim on 11 March that he hadn’t seen the advice that his Government’s tax cuts for landlords had blown out by $800 million, given his finance Minister had already publicly confirmed that that was the case, or has he just given up on trying to keep track of all of his Government’s Budget blowouts?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’ll tell you who I haven’t given up on, and it’s the renters of New Zealand. Under that Government, average rents went up $170 a week. Well, I’m sorry, we’re here to fix things. We’re here to get the country turned around. We’re going to get things done, and we’re going to make sure that there’s more rental property available. We don’t just load up landlords with costs that pass on to renters that lead to higher rents. We want lower rents, downward pressure on rents.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will tenants get $800 million worth of rent reductions as a result of this policy?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What we will be doing is increasing the supply of rental property and putting downward pressure on rent, as he has received in formal advice before in Government. That’s why his policies didn’t work. They ended up increasing average rents—that’s not acceptable. We’re on the side of renters in New Zealand.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept the Prime Minister hasn’t answered any of my questions thus far, but that was a relatively simple and straightforward question about an $800 million policy which he claims is going to lower rents. I’ve asked whether it will result in $800 million worth of rent reductions.

SPEAKER: Well, as I said just recently in Parliament, it’s a good idea if people refer to the point of order or the matter of order they’re referring to. Given your opening statement there, I think you probably closed off some opportunities. But can I just say that no member has the right to expect a yes or no answer, and the final line of that line of questioning really did invite the response that the member got.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon, “I can tell you in the National Party we understand the economy and we are rock solid in our numbers.”, given his tax promises were $800 million out on interest deductibility, more than $500 million out on gambling, and $1.3 billion out on benefit indexation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, look, I can tell you it is ironic that you are trying to lecture me on economics after six years of being in Government, of actually causing huge damage to our books, having had economic mismanagement and vandalism on a scale we’ve never seen before, an 84 percent increase in Government spending. You drove up domestic inflation, you drove up interest rates, the last three quarters of the last year’s economic growth went down, and you’ve got rising unemployment. So I don’t take lectures from you on anything to do with economics, thank you very much.

SPEAKER: I just point out that it wasn’t me lecturing the Prime Minister of any of those things.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the fiscal impact of the mortgage interest deductibility changes is greater than the estimate of one party and closer to the estimate of another party in the coalition, because this Government is actually a coalition of three partners working together for a better New Zealand, and does he have any advice for the guy on the other side who has no friends?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m very proud of the way that the three parties in this coalition Government are working to actually get things done for New Zealanders.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: By how much has Government debt increased in recent years?

In 2008, net core Crown debt—a measure which includes Government financial assets as well as financial liabilities—was 5 percent of GDP. Despite the global financial crisis (GFC), both the Key-English Government and the following Labour Government, at least initially, had a goal of keeping net debt to 20 percent of GDP or below. In 2019, it was 19 percent. What is it now? Net core Crown debt, according to the latest forecasts—[Interruption] Members opposite laugh, but I think most New Zealanders would be interested in this grave number. They don’t think it’s very laughable—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Previous Speakers have ruled very clearly that Ministers can’t ask themselves questions, and they particularly can’t ask themselves questions when they’re in the process of answering one.

SPEAKER: That’s quite true, but I think, in this case, the question that was asked was being paraphrased. I’m taking a generous view on that. We will have the answer with the appropriate brevity.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Net core Crown debt, according to the latest forecasts, is now 44 percent of GDP—44 percent—a considerable increase in only five years. To put it in perspective, members, 44 percent of GDP is the highest that net debt has been as a proportion of the overall economy in 30 years, comparable only with the period from the late 1980s to the mid-1990s.

Stuart Smith: What has caused debt to increase so quickly?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, COVID-19 was a big reason that net core Crown debt increased so quickly, but Government spending outside of COVID has also increased significantly, with Treasury advising me that the previous Government left us with a structural operating deficit of around 2 percent of GDP. The result is that net core Crown debt increased from around $59 billion in 2017 to $183 billion this year, an increase of more than $100 billion in six short years.

Stuart Smith: Has she seen any other explanations for the recent increase in debt?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, yes, I have seen reports that the reason debt increased so much was that the previous Government was making so many high-quality infrastructure investments. In particular, one not exactly impartial observer recently said that increasing debt “has enabled us to invest more in transport, into health and education capital, more into the things we need to underpin the kind of society and economy we want”. I have searched for evidence of such high-quality investment, but amongst the wreckage of light rail, the Auckland harbour cycle bridge—

SPEAKER: That’ll be enough—[Interruption] That’s enough. Can I just remind the member asking the question that you can’t use the question process to attack the Opposition. You can, of course, ask it in a way that is reflective of what conditions Ministers may find themselves in.

Stuart Smith: Should the Government borrow for productive investments?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Absolutely. That is one of the reasons the Government should borrow: to fund high-quality investments that provide benefits to New Zealanders over time, including those that increase the productive capacity of the economy. But I would add one important note of caution: economic shocks push up debt quite considerably. We’ve seen this recently with the global financial crisis and with COVID. After a shock, Governments have to either bring debt down again as a percentage of GDP, which necessarily requires constraint, or let debt settle at a higher level. New Zealand has seen public debt ratchet up like this since 2008. I would invite members to engage in a little thought experiment, where we went through the GFC and COVID with a starting point for net debt of 50 percent of GDP rather than 5 percent; so Governments should always be thinking about the next shock that’s around the corner, not just maxing out the credit card today.

Stuart Smith: Has she seen any commentators arguing for higher debt?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, yes. I have seen a report saying that a future Government would consider taking on more debt, despite New Zealand’s debt being the highest for 30 years, despite us having little to show for it, and despite interest costs rising to $8.8 billion this year. I’m disappointed to hear that coming from a member of this House, Barbara Edmonds.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the Treasury chief economist who has stated, “Our key point is that current debt levels in New Zealand are well within the range that we would consider prudent.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I agree that that definition of “prudent” is met. What I question is whether New Zealanders can see $123 billion worth of value generated by that Government for the $123 billion worth of debt that they have saddled this and future generations with.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement, and I quote, “I think everyone agrees that the State must always provide a safety net for New Zealanders who have fallen on hard times … and State houses will … play a very important part of that safety net”?

Absolutely. But, before I begin, can I just congratulate the member on her ascendancy to the leadership of the Green Party, or co-leadership of the Green Party. Absolutely, including those State tenants who have been abused and victimised by their neighbours. Take Cheyne Smith, who’s been a Kāinga Ora (KO) tenant since 2015 and described the actions of some of his neighbouring KO tenants. He said, “I’ve been beaten, the house has been robbed, egged, bottled. Visitors were assaulted, vehicles got stolen. It was a nightmare.” The previous Government and their friends in the Green Party promoted a policy that facilitated a culture of intimidation and abuse, and I’m very proud that our Government is going to deliver change.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can he guarantee that no children in this country will be made homeless as a result of his Government’s policies?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we don’t want to actually see KO tenants being evicted from KO housing, but, actually, the parents are adults and they have a choice to make about whether they want to meet their obligations and their responsibilities. That is the first port of call.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will he resign if any children are made homeless as a result of his Government’s policies?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: There are children that are growing up in motels today, that are living on floors of family or friends, or in community housing provider housing, who actually want a shot, and their families want a shot, at being able to get into the State house. The problem today is that there are 24,000 people on a State house wait-list, which went up four or five times under the previous Government. There are neighbours in those KO communities who are getting abused, and I’m sorry, but we’re standing up for those folk and saying to them, “There are rights and responsibilities in this country”.

Chlöe Swarbrick: So is the game plan here that those who are evicted—

SPEAKER: No, stop—stop. Start with a question word.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the plan here that those evicted from public housing are made homeless or eventually end up in prison?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The plan here is to give people a shot of getting a State house—who deserve a shot at getting a State house and are going to appreciate it and value it, and actually make sure that they can actually get their shot at the Kiwi Dream. That’s what this is about. What this plan is about is making sure that neighbours of KO tenants, who are getting abused and threatened every single day—that stops. It stops.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he care at all about the evidence that his Government’s policies will increase homelessness, poverty, and inequality, or is he intent on running this Government on vibes?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are wanting to grow this economy so we can drive more prosperity in this economy and lift wages and incomes for everybody.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister as to whether he’s seen or heard of any policy, either here or anywhere in the world, where a tenant can have absolute contempt for the landlord, whether it be State or whether it be private, and yet be the beneficiary of the largess being suggested by that questioner?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The deal’s very simple in New Zealand: you have rights to a State house when you need it, but you also have responsibilities to look after it like it’s your own house. That’s the deal. Because a taxpayer has woken up this morning—a low and middle income worker that the Labour Party used to care about, who’s actually paying their taxes, going to work, giving it to the Government—to actually subsidise the living of some other fellow Kiwi. They need to respect their property; they need to respect and have responsibilities as well as rights.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister trying to say that our society needs people to treat each other well and take responsibility for themselves?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That is exactly right: our society should be built on the notion of we have rights but we also have responsibilities to each other and to the country.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Kia orana kātoatoa, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Yes, in the context in which they were given. I particularly stand by my commitment to give tax relief to hard-working New Zealanders in the upcoming Budget in May.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by both her statements that she knows a front-line service “when I see it” and that there would be no cuts to front-line public services?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she see front-line services when she looks at Customs staff, police officers, firefighters, free school lunches, and carers funded through Whaikaha, and, if so, why is her Government cutting the support for these front-line services?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, what a gift of a question! This is a Government that sees police as front line and is increasing the number of police. This is a Government that wants to continue the school lunch programme that the other Government didn’t leave any budgeted funding for, so we’re prioritising it in our upcoming Budget.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her statement that she is committed to delivering tax cuts without borrowing a cent?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That’s right.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the Prime Minister when he committed to no new taxes or increasing existing taxes; if so, how does she reconcile that with breaking her promise to axe the app tax, increasing petrol taxes by 22c a litre, and introducing an additional $50 tax on every New Zealanders’ vehicle?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’ll give the member a little instruction on coalition Government, because the Government’s tax and fiscal plans reflect coalition negotiations which resulted in a number of amendments to the proposals that National and other parties campaigned on. And I’d just reassure the member that we will be delivering tax relief to the hard-working Kiwis who missed out on her Government’s watch and who haven’t had a tax reduction since 2010.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why is she introducing at least three new taxes she promised not to, cutting funding for wheelchair servicing, refusing to commit to funding school lunches as set out in her fiscal plan, and is she worried she will run out of election commitments to break?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Look, the member can list a bunch of assertions that are completely incorrect but it doesn’t reflect well on her. Because we are committed to funding the school lunch programme, we are committed to funding disability services, we are committed to sustaining good front-line services—our Budget will reflect that. And here’s the thing: when you’re actually careful about eliminating waste in the back office, when you actually drive down the amount wasted on consultants and contractors and ridiculous processes and low-value programmes, that frees up more cash for front-line services that New Zealanders rely on. Our Government’s doing it; their Government should have—sorry about that.

Question No. 5—Housing

5. to the Minister of Housing: What actions has he taken setting out his expectations for Kāinga Ora-Homes and Communities?

Oh, well, yesterday, the Minister of Finance and I, as shareholding Minister, sent an interim letter of expectation to the board of Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities (KO), instructing them to end their Sustaining Tenancies Framework, the policy of the last Government that enabled intimidation, abuse, and destruction in communities up and down this country. We have directed Kāinga Ora to make better use of tools in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, including formal warning notices, relocations, and, in severe and persistent cases, terminating tenancies. KO records hundreds of serious incidents every month, including alleged illegal activity, harassment, intimidation, threatening behaviour, and verbal abuse. Despite this, only three people were evicted last year for bad behaviour. There is no incentive for tenants to improve their behaviour or to stop damaging their taxpayer-funded house unless they know there are consequences. We’re bringing them back.

Katie Nimon: What prompted the Government to make this change?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, we’ve all seen the stories of the kind of misery that the last Government’s policy enabled, which is why we have directed Kāinga Ora to stop it. This also fulfils a coalition commitment between the National and ACT parties. To name just one example, we saw the elderly Whangārei couple subject to death threats from the patched Black Power Kāinga Ora tenants next door. They allegedly threatened to slit the 82-year-old man’s throat and watch him bleed out. To give you another example, we heard the heartbreaking story from a Te Awamutu homeowner who said a campaign of abuse from his Mongrel Mob Kāinga Ora neighbours cost him his marriage and left him with post-traumatic stress disorder. He told the New Zealand Herald of a night where a meth-crazed man linked to a Kāinga Ora property next door smashed up his house at 3 a.m. and tried to break in. These sorts of activities and behaviours need to stop, and under this Government, they will.

Katie Nimon: What did this interim letter of expectations say about rent arrears?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the Government has laid out its expectation that Kāinga Ora stops letting tenants go into massive rent arrears, as we’ve seen happen over the last few years. To give you the exact numbers, in 2017, tenants’ rent debt was $1 million; six years later, it has ballooned to $21 million. At the moment, there are more than 450 Kāinga Ora tenants who each owe more than $10,000. That is a staggering amount of debt to let a State house tenant get into. It’s not fair on taxpayers. It’s not fair on the tenants themselves. We have instructed Kāinga Ora to be much more proactive about preventing this from happening in the first place.

Katie Nimon: What else did the letter of expectation say?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We’ve made it clear that we expect Kāinga Ora to move families into vacant homes much more quickly than they are currently doing. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of homes vacant at any given time, and when the wait-list is over 25,000 people, that is not OK. We are also concerned about the loss of social licence for social housing in communities, often because communities feel that social housing developments happen without engagement from Kāinga Ora. We have therefore instructed them to do more to genuinely engage with local communities about their development plans and activities, above and beyond their existing legal requirements. We’ve sent this interim letter to make sure that they are focused on the right things right now, and we intend as a Government to issue an updated letter of expectation later this year in response to the independent review led by Sir Bill English, which is reporting to Ministers very soon.

Question No. 6—Police

6. to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Yes.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he stand by his statement regarding the police pay offer: “No, we are not offering less than what Labour offered. That’s not true at all.”?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with the president of the New Zealand Police Association, Chris Cahill, “It’s like a slap in the face. It’s like saying how dare you turn us down, we’re going to give you an even lower offer. They just misread the room. They’ve misread it badly.”; if not, why not?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I respect the role of the president of the Police Association and he respects our role. The police and the Police Association are engaged in good-faith negotiations, and they carry on.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is the real reason the police pay offer is not backdated and contains three significant clawbacks due to funding now going to tax cuts for landlords?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: No.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Which is correct: the coalition agreement that promises 500 new police in two years, or Christopher Luxon’s statement that it’s “a clear goal that we are heading towards”?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, we’ve been very clear that the coalition agreement says that we will deliver 500 additional police officers in two years, and the Prime Minister is absolutely right in restating that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister whether he’s actually dealing with pay for the police from last year, and why would that be?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, the offer made by the previous Government was rejected by the police—[Interruption]—that’s right, and they failed to really act on that quickly. Whereas the incoming Government—we take it seriously, we’ve acted quickly, and we negotiate in good faith.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that where the previous Government was very flinty, our Government has come in and agreed, on this issue, to provide more funding so that a more generous offer could be made to front-line police officers?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, I can confirm that and I can also confirm that probably under the previous Minister that the Labour Government—against convention—asked the police to provide within baseline the competency service increments payment, which is a very important payment that goes to police officers to recognise their progression through the ranks, and that is something this Government has reinstated.

SPEAKER: Yeah, just to remind people that asking questions of a Minister about the responsibility of a previous Government’s Minister is not within Standing Orders. It might be fun, but it’s not helpful.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for that, and it is indeed consistent with other rulings that you’ve made. It would be helpful to the order of the House if that direction was given before the Minister had the opportunity to answer, given that it was the question that was against Standing Orders, not the response.

SPEAKER: Yeah. Thank you for your advice and I’ll take it on board.

Question No. 7—Prime Minister

7. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his Government’s policies and actions?

Absolutely—in the context that they were made.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his Minister Responsible for RMA Reform’s statement about the fast-track approvals bill that “people who are keen on having the projects inserted into the bill will be able to submit them to the expert panel”, and, if so, will experts, local communities, and iwi Māori groups concerned by these proposed projects also be able to submit to the panel?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we’ve got a very good process that involves Ministers, expert panels, and decisions by Cabinet.

Hon Marama Davidson: What advice, if any, has he received on the constitutional appropriateness of adding a list of projects into the legislation after the select committee stage, and the ways in which this could undermine public input, scrutiny, and transparency?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Completely appropriate, but what I’d say to you: the purpose of fast-track consenting is it’s taking too long to get anything done in this country. We have built an obstruction economy. We are here to get things done. That’s why we’re taking fast track, introduced by David Parker, beefed it up, put it on steroids, and are actually going to get some outcomes for some people.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his statement that he will “ensure the fast-track consenting legislation upholds Te Tiriti”, and, if so, can he guarantee that his Government will not fast track any mining consents that may impact Treaty settlements?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question, yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with former chief press secretary for the National Party Janet Wilson that “the fast-track consenting bill is not an act of political alliance so much as pork barrelling at its finest, providing a new golden age for National and New Zealand First’s backers”, and, if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely rubbish. I mean, the bottom line here is that we have an obstruction economy. We’ve actually taken an awful long time to consent something, and it’s costing a huge amount of money. We want to actually deliver on our climate goals, something that I think the Green Party would want to identify and align with us around, but you can’t take eight years to consent a wind farm and two years to build it. Why don’t we just take one year to consent and build renewable energy and then two years to build it, and get the benefit in three years, not 10 years?

Question No. 8—Health

8. to the Minister of Health: What steps has the Government taken to deliver better health outcomes for all New Zealanders?

The Government recently announced that we are putting health targets at the forefront of our health policy. We are introducing five key targets that clearly spell out faster cancer treatment, improved immunisation for children, shorter stays in emergency departments, and shorter wait times for both first specialist assessments and planned care. We are an outcomes-driven Government, and these health targets show that.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why was it so important to shift health targets to the forefront of the Government’s health policy?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This Government believes that health targets help direct attention and resources and sets a clear agenda for where our health system should be heading. That is why it is important to have targets at the forefront of decision making. Targets are also accountability and transparency at all levels of our health system, which is vitally important for ensuring the delivery of timely access to quality healthcare for all New Zealanders.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: How will the Government ensure that the health targets are robust and will deliver better outcomes?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I am aware of the potential for gaming targets and will keep a close eye on this. There will be mechanisms to ensure that our health targets will remain robust. These include quality assurance processes to validate data, clinical engagement with discussions on emerging concerns, and the use of independent agencies such as the Health Quality and Safety Commission to support reviews, as needed.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why has the Government chosen immunisation for children as a key target?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: In 2015, when targets were still at the forefront of Government policy, the immunisation rates for children stood at just over 93 percent. Today, that number is worrisome, at 83 percent. This is well behind countries like the UK, Australia, and Canada. We should be doing much better for our children, and this target is one step to enable that.

Question No. 9—Environment

9. to the Associate Minister for the Environment: Does he stand by his statement, “For now, the Government has agreed to suspend the obligation to impose SNAs under the NPS Indigenous Biodiversity, and we’re sending a clear message that it would be unwise to bother”?

I stand by my statement that the Government has agreed to suspend the obligations for councils to impose significant natural areas (SNAs) under the national policy statement (NPS), Indigenous Biodiversity. I also stand by my statement last week that there has been no change to statutory or regulatory obligations on councils. Those obligations continue to apply until they are amended. Cabinet has agreed to amend the NPS for Indigenous Biodiversity through a legislative vehicle, and suspend the NPS requirements for councils to adopt new SNAs into their plans.

Lan Pham: What, if anything, does he consider the biodiversity collaborative group—set up under the Hon Dr Nick Smith—got wrong when they developed the framework of rules for councils to follow when working with farmers and iwi Māori landowners to identify significant natural areas?

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m struggling to work out how that is connected. With the greatest respect to the member, who I know is a new member, I’m struggling to understand how something to do with Dr Nick Smith in relation to something that the member said relates to the actually quite specific primary question around something that the new Minister has said in relation to the NPS for Indigenous Biodiversity.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Speaking to the point of order. The primary did contain elements of the policy that the supplementary questions followed. Additionally, it is following comments from the answer to the primary question, so that’s well within what has happened before, where people pick up on a statement that touches on a policy and then they ask supplementary questions in relationship to that policy.

SPEAKER: Well, the member is a very good advocate for that cause. I’ll hear from the Hon James Shaw.

Hon James Shaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. According to the point of order, the national policy statement—

SPEAKER: Just a minute—just a minute. You’re very hard to hear there. People might need to do something about that.

Hon James Shaw: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Oh, now you’re there. Welcome back.

Hon James Shaw: Thank you very much. The National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity is derived from the work that was established by Dr Nick Smith in the biodiversity collaborative group for that purpose. I would have thought that the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform and the Minister responsible for that national policy statement would know that.

SPEAKER: Yes, I think the point is, though, it doesn’t matter who was the Minister at the time, policy endures. So I think the question might be better worded. Do you want to have another crack at that question, Lan Pham?

Lan Pham: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What, if anything, does he consider the biodiversity collaborative group got wrong when they developed the framework of rules for councils to follow, when working with farmers and iwi Māori landowners to identify significant natural areas?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: The biodiversity collaborative stakeholder group did not actually reach a consensus in the end. There was a minority statement, by a number of groups, so there was no consensus on an outcome. The decision was not taking into account what the biodiversity stakeholder group—actually, they didn’t land on a decision. So that’s the answer.

Lan Pham: What, according to his own ministry’s reporting, is the proportion of native species in Aotearoa that are threatened or at risk of extinction?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: I do not have those numbers on hand at the moment. I can come back to it.

Mark Cameron: Why is it important to make this amendment to the national direction to remove the obligation on councils?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Kill the birds faster.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Because the current use of SNAs are an unjustified intrusion on private property rights, and they are a barrier to the great work that landowners have already been doing on their farms. This change will give us time to review the operation of SNAs and formulate ways to work with landowners to recognise them for the work they’re already doing and to incentivise them to do more.

Hūhana Lyndon: Did the Minister engage specifically with whenua Māori landowners in the suspension of SNAs, and, if you did, what was their feedback?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: No consultation has been undertaken in this. There will be consultation going into what will be the future use of SNAs. Basically, this was signalled in our coalition agreement in the 100-day plan.

Hon David Seymour: What is the effect on people in rural New Zealand when they hear statements from urbanites such as “they want to kill the birds faster”, as the Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick just heckled while he was answering questions about a serious topic?

SPEAKER: Yeah, we’ll try the question a different way.

Hon David Seymour: What is the effect on the psyche, morale, and mental health of those in rural New Zealand when it is assumed they want to remove intrusive regulations such as SNAs in order to “Kill the birds faster.”, as I just heard from a member opposite?

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. I don’t believe the Associate Minister has any responsibility for the first part of that question, beyond the fact that it is, frankly, just ridiculous that it is even being asked.

SPEAKER: Well, that would really render question time quite useless if we took that view, because, in the end, every Minister’s decision affects New Zealanders. If you couldn’t ask a question related to that, then we’d be in big trouble here.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: I think rural New Zealand are sick and tired of being portrayed as people who don’t care about their land. Our land is so important to us—it is vital. Up and down this country, I see more and more farmers engaging in planting activities on their farms, creating wetlands, planting off streams, riparian planting—this is all happening. This is happening under farmers’ own steam at the moment. We intend to encourage that and incentivise them to do more.

Hūhana Lyndon: How, then, will this Government protect indigenous biodiversity and taonga species on private land once the requirement for councils to do so has been stripped away and undermined?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: How we will encourage this is by encouraging the behaviour that has already been happening. As I have said to this House a number of times, in my time in farming, I have seen a complete mind shift from farmers, who are doing more and more every day on protecting biodiversity on their farm, encouraging more of it. That is how we are going to be working with farmers to do more of this.

SPEAKER: Before we move to question 10, can I just make a broad plea to the House that when questions are being asked or lodged with the Clerk’s office, the use of acronyms is absolutely minimised so that everybody reading the question can know fully what it’s about. During the course of the answers there, we had those various acronyms used in their full names—it would be good if they were also in the question. So if the House could take that on board, that would be useful.

Question No. 10—Police

10. to the Minister of Police: What recent results has he seen from Operation Emerald?

Today, Police announced outstanding results, including in the member’s electorate. In a recent five-day operation, Bay of Plenty police have delivered a massive blow in stopping a major source of funding for organised crime groups. The execution of 39 search warrants saw 29 firearms seized and 25 arrests made. Additionally, police seized more than 80 grams of methamphetamine, over $7,000 in cash, two stolen vehicles, and a stolen motorbike. During the operation, 11,372 cannabis plants were destroyed. Operation Emerald targets the back pockets of gangs and organised crime by targeting the large-scale commercial cultivation of cannabis, and I’m proud of the work that police have done around the country to keep their communities safe.

Sam Uffindell: How much money did Operation Emerald prevent going into the hands of gangs last year?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Police destroyed over 35,000 cannabis plants and prevented $128 million going into the pockets of gangs through Operation Emerald. Based on the drug harm index, the estimated social harm prevented by Operation Emerald last year was $127 million.

Sam Uffindell: Does the Minister agree with the characterisations of Operation Emerald as “ineffective” and “police playing tin soldiers in the sky”?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Comments like that show a lack of respect or understanding for the outstanding job our police officers do, in often difficult situations and circumstances, keeping our community safe and slowing down and disrupting the flow of harmful drugs into our communities.

Sam Uffindell: What is the Minister’s message to criminals taking part in large-scale cultivation of cannabis?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: My message is quite simply this: if you choose to cultivate a drug that remains illegal and if you use it to fund your criminal lifestyle and perpetuate misery in our communities, you can expect police to hold you to account and to seize illegal firearms, drugs, and ill-gotten gains. I’m proud of the police and the work that they do in targeting organised crime, and I back Operation Emerald 100 percent.

Question No. 11—Disability Issues

11. to the Minister for Disability Issues: Does she stand by her statement regarding changes to purchasing rules and equipment and modification services, “These changes are happening from 18 March and are intended to be temporary changes until later this year”; if so, will she commit to restoring flexibility of funding as was available to the disability communities prior to 18 March 2024?

These changes are happening from 18 March 2024 and are in place while we complete work on the long-term settings for the use of flexible funding. Whaikaha is working to manage a forecast overspend in the disability support system in this financial year. It is important to take a balanced and fair approach to prioritising disability support funding within the budget available. Whaikaha is prioritising across the system and making changes from 18 March 2024; changes to the purchasing rules which are intended to provide clarity about what supports can be purchased using disability funding, and to prioritise spending towards supports accessed by disabled people. Equipment and modification services will be prioritised to provide support to those disabled people with the highest needs first.

SPEAKER: I just say to members on the left, I do need to hear the answers to these questions.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why was there no consultation with those who would be most impacted by these changes?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: As I said, the increase in the use of these services has caused a funding blowout, and it is somewhat disingenuous for the member of that party, who put the policies in place that set up the situation that Whaikaha is now facing in terms of flexibility of purchasing and ring-fencing the funding, taking it out of a demand-funding situation.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What does the Minister say to a mother who contacted me today to say that “flexible use of respite funding has been absolutely essential for the wellbeing of our whānau”, and she goes on to say that “we cannot use a professional support person, so then you have effectively taken our respite funding away”?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I say, as I said in my initial answer, that we need to take time to have a look at the flexible funding and how we are going to manage it going forward. But the manner in which it was put in place, without criteria and without support there for how it can be used, has seen more than doubling of the use of that fund and therefore the pressure that Whaikaha are now under.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How do you respond to Carlos Cordero, who is concerned that the new rules restrict funding for whānau carers and ignores their experience as whānau carers who actually are on the ground doing the mahi?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: This has been a difficult time for Whaikaha trying to deal with the policy settings that the previous Government put in place of ring-fencing the funding but still allowing major flexibility for purchasing using that funding. That funding is for disabled people, and the priority has to be for use of that funding for those with a disability.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Does the Minister agree with Maureen Pugh, who said, and I quote, “If you’re talking about wasted expenditure then that’s very much where we’ll go. But reducing funding and support for those in need, we are actually looking to increase support.”, and will she commit to increasing support in Budget 2024?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The fund for the equipment and modification of services has been increased by 10 percent. So the misleading statements from the Opposition about funding cuts is completely incorrect. The issue is the policy settings that were put in place by the previous Government that has seen a blowout in the funds available.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What does the Minister say to Huana Hickey, a tāngata hauā advocate, who feels these changes attack the very heart of the disabled’s needs?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: It is a difficult time for Whaikaha trying to prioritise the funding. There is not an open cheque book, and therefore they do have to make priorities. So the priority has been that the funding must be spent on the person with the disability, when, in the past, the previous Government allowed such flexibility for carers to be able to spend on such things for themselves as pedicures, as massages, as overseas travel. So when the funding is under constraint, then the priority must be for the disabled person to receive the funding.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: No, you’ve used them all up.

Question No. 12—Health (Pharmac)

12. to the Associate Minister of Health (Pharmac): What recent announcements has he made about improving New Zealanders’ access to medicines?

Thank you to the member for his question. Pharmac is changing its processes so that it can assess a funding application at the same time Medsafe is assessing an application for regulatory approval of the same product. This means that medicines will be able to be considered sooner for funding in New Zealand. Access to medicines is a crucial part of many Kiwis’ lives, and this Government is speeding up the process so that more people have access to the medicines they need, quicker and sooner.

Todd Stephenson: How will the parallel assessment process that the Minister has outlined improve access to medicines?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, currently, Pharmac waits until Medsafe has completed its assessment before it begins a funding assessment, unless the treatment is in relation to cancer. Doing both the regulatory assessment to see if it’s safe at Medsafe and the funding assessment to see if it is a good use of taxpayer funds at Pharmac at the same time is common sense. It’s a change that costs nothing but it will help Kiwis in need by shaving up to nine months off the approval process. It will also bring us into line with countries such as Australia and Canada, which do it and have been doing it exactly the way that we now will.

Todd Stephenson: Has he seen any reports of any risks to access to medicines for New Zealanders?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes. In fact, I have been looking at Budget documents that show that Pharmac’s funding over the next three years was left by the previous Government as reducing by several hundred million dollars each year for the next four years. In total, to maintain the level of pharmaceutical funding that New Zealanders are used to, the Government would have to find nearly $2 billion of extra funding over four years, and that is something that this Government is now working very hard to do in challenging economic conditions.

Todd Stephenson: What steps is he taking to ensure even more access to medicines for New Zealanders?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The coalition Government is based in part on an ACT-National coalition agreement which contains a commitment to updating the rules for Medsafe to speed up the processing of new medicines for regulatory approval to within 30 days if two recognised overseas regulators have already approved it. It is to design and publish a medicines strategy and to update Pharmac’s decision-making model to ensure that it appropriately accounts for patient voice.