Oral Questions

I’d like to make a personal explanation regarding my answers.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I’d like to make a personal statement regarding my answers as Associate Minister of Health to oral questions on 30 January 2024. I’m speaking specifically to the questions that asked if I was being truthful when I denied to the media that I had requested advice on freezing tobacco excise tax. On review of my response, I acknowledge that there is confusion arising from my understanding of the differentiation between seeking specific advice and accepting advice being offered. I had no intention of misleading the House, and I apologise for any confusion. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Generally speaking, when a Minister is correcting an answer they have given, they state what the incorrect answer was and what the correct answer was. I don’t think anyone in this House would be any the wiser as to exactly what it is the Minister has just corrected.

Well, that’s not quite true, because I’m very wise on these things and right up with it, as it happens. And if you think back to the way in which an earlier apology was given in this House for a matter that was potentially a matter of privilege—and we still don’t know where this ends up—then you would see that a similar course of action was taken with no objection.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I recall the questions asked quite clearly. The Minister was repeatedly asked whether she had requested advice and she repeatedly said no. Is her correction now saying that she did ask for that advice? If so, she should say that.

I don’t believe that is what has just been said, but I’ll obviously have to read it when it comes out in the Hansard. I do know what the complaint was and I do know what the response was, and, clearly, this is still a matter under consideration. Thank you very much.

Question No. 1—Finance

1. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on New Zealand’s economic and fiscal response to the COVID-19 pandemic?

I’ve seen a report delivered to the New Zealand Economics Forum by the Secretary to the Treasury in which she highlighted that effective fiscal stimulus in response to crises should be “temporary, targeted and timely”. She goes on to note in the speech that the bigger concern is the trajectory of spending and that, in New Zealand, operating expenditure has continued to exceed revenue on an ongoing basis, stating, “This was the case even through a period in which the economy was overheating and unemployment was at generational lows—normally a time when we expect fiscal policy to be at its tightest.”

Greg Fleming: What impact has Government fiscal policy had on interest rates?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the same speech goes on to note that fiscal policy has had an impact on inflation, with the Secretary to the Treasury noting, “Our assessment is that fiscal policy has contributed to interest rates being higher than otherwise.” And, of course, that has an impact on every single family with a mortgage, every person with a credit card debt, every small business trying to repay a loan. High interest rates hurt, and what we know is that loose fiscal policy has contributed to them being higher than they might otherwise have been.

Greg Fleming: Why should New Zealanders be concerned about structural fiscal deficits facing the Government?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, structural deficits ultimately have a fiscal impact, which means that they shift costs to future generations, they ultimately reduce Government’s ability to provide public services, and they add considerably to debt-servicing costs. This year, the Government is forecast to spend $8.8 billion just servicing New Zealand’s debt. That sum is more than the Government spent combined on secondary schools, police, and early childhood education last year.

Greg Fleming: What action is the Government taking to bring spending back under control?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The coalition Government has started an ongoing fiscal sustainability programme to embed a culture of responsible spending across Government. The first step of this programme is an initial baseline savings exercise for Government agencies, designed to find about $1.5 billion per annum in savings to deliver on our policy commitments and to fund critical cost pressures. This situation brings to mind a cartoon that the Hon Grant Robertson once shared with me in question time; I would like to congratulate him on his foresight and wish him all the best for his future.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it the Minister’s assessment that the wage subsidy, the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme, and other policies to support businesses during the COVID pandemic are redundant and that she wouldn’t have supported businesses to hold on to their employees during the pandemic?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I’ve just outlined in the answers to my previous questions, I concur with the view of the Secretary to the Treasury, which is that targeted and timely responses were warranted during the COVID epidemic. The real challenge that New Zealand is now facing is that the spending never got unwound and that it continued at very elevated levels without driving the kind of value and services that New Zealanders expect, and while seeing them endure a cost of living crisis in which they had far less money to spend in their take-home pay.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, in the context they were given.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What will he do to protect the takatāpui community from increased discrimination as a result of his Government’s policies, such as their policy to ban transgender athletes from competing in publicly funded sports?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That is not our policy. What we want to make sure is that sports balance fairness and inclusion.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What solutions will be put in place to address Māori health inequities after his Government dismantles the Māori Health Authority?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we want to work hard to improve Māori health outcomes. We’re going to work with local iwi, in the spirit of localism and devolution, to design solutions to improve outcomes locally. We just don’t believe that the way to go about that is building a massive health central bureaucracy here in Wellington.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What actions is his Government taking to push for a sustainable ceasefire in Palestine?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’ve been calling for a cessation of hostilities since October last year.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How bad is the Prime Minister willing to allow things to get before his Government cuts diplomatic ties and sanctions Israel for war crimes against Palestinian civilians?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the assertion in that question. That is not something we’re interested in.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by the statement of Christopher Luxon, “Do not be a climate denier. Do not be a climate minimalist. This is real. Give it up.”, and, if so, why did his state of the nation speech this weekend mention climate action precisely zero times?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I do, and I disagree with you. We talked a lot about actually how we speed up the fast-track consenting process so we can get more renewable energy in place, whether that be geothermal, solar. We want to make sure we’ve got renewable electricity in place so we can get double the amount of renewable electricity and get this country moving towards its climate goals.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Yes, I do. In particular, I stand by my statement from the weekend where I said, “I haven’t met a single young Kiwi whose ambition, creativity, and spark would be best served by a life on a benefit.” That is why I’m very proud to stand by this Government’s actions to address the legacy of welfare dependency that the previous Labour Government was all too happy to grow. And, before I take any more questions, can I just acknowledge Grant Robertson’s announcement of his retirement today. I thank him for his service in this place in Parliament, and also in Government, and wish him well for the future.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is Louise Upston correct that changes to benefit indexation will save the Government $669.5 million through to 2027-28?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it depends very strongly on what the forecast projections are going forward. As you know, in your previous Government, there was a period where, actually, inflation was running well ahead of wage increases. As a result, that’s why we’ve moved it back to make sure we index benefits to inflation so that people are protected from their purchasing power being eroded by inflation.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked him whether the Minister was correct or not or whether he agreed with the Minister or not. He has given a whole lot of other information, but he hasn’t actually answered whether or not he agrees with the Minister.

SPEAKER: Well, I thought he reasonably did, but ask the question again at no cost to your supplementary list.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Thank you. Is Louise Upston correct that changes to benefit indexation will save the Government $669.5 million through to 2027-28?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It all depends on the forecast going forward. But what I’d say to you is indexing benefits going forward, indexing benefits to inflation—that’s the right way to go.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was Cabinet made aware of the fact that a disabled Kiwi on the supported living payment would lose $2,300 a year by 2028 thanks to changes to benefit indexations; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’re making sure that benefits are adjusted by the amount of inflation so that the purchasing power of those beneficiaries is not eroded. That is the way we’re managing it going forward, and we think that’s the right approach.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That didn’t answer the question—didn’t come close to addressing it.

SPEAKER: Now, I disagree with you because I think, while you ask a question, you can’t guarantee what the answer is. But if the question was—sorry, I was told not to get into explaining these things, so I won’t explain it. I’ll just say ask it again and we’ll probably get the same answer that would be quite acceptable.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was Cabinet made aware of the fact that a disabled Kiwi on the supported living payment would lose $2,300 a year by 2028 thanks to changes to benefit indexations; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: They’re not losing anything. We’re adjusting benefits and indexing benefits to inflation so that the purchasing power of a beneficiary maintains, irrespective of what happens with inflation.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If people aren’t going to lose anything because of their changes to benefit indexations, how is the Government saving $669.5 million?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: They’re not losing anything, because we’re adjusting benefits by the amount of inflation.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did he state at his press conference yesterday that someone undergoing cancer treatment could be forced to work 10 hours a week?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’d say to you is we are determined to make sure that people who are on a jobseeker benefit are upholding their obligations. There is a case by case basis. There will be valid reasons why people may or may not meet their obligations. But people who are on a health ticket under the jobseeker benefit actually also want to work, in many cases. We are supporting people into work.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What’s the total estimated cost of the coalition agreement to restore mortgage interest deductibility for rental properties, including the backdating that they have agreed to?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That information will be available in the Budget in May.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What does it say about his Government’s priorities that their first major financial decisions involve backdating tax breaks for landlords, increasing Government revenue from people smoking, and cutting benefits for the lowest-income New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’ll tell you what we’re not going to do: we’re not going to do what that Government did, which was to increase the number of people on the jobseeker benefit by 70,000 people—increased it by 58 percent, took the number of sanctions and obligations down by 57 percent. We care about young people on a benefit. We want to get people from welfare into work. On that basis, that would exclude the deputy leader of the Labour Party from running for the leader of the Labour Party one day down the road.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that the Opposition is having difficulty reorganising itself, but every member from that front bench over there shouting is surely not the way to image this Parliament. We don’t mind objection—we welcome it—but that sort of screaming, mindless leadership mess is not what Parliament should look like.

SPEAKER: Well, you might say that, but I was actually also looking over this side because the Prime Minister was speaking, and there was a considerable amount of support for what he was saying loudly coming from that side. So I think it’s one all.

Question No. 4—Health (Pharmac)

4. to the Associate Minister of Health (Pharmac): What benefits, if any, can New Zealanders expect to see from the Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill?

New Zealanders can indeed expect great benefits from the legalisation of pseudoephedrine cough and cold treatments. The most obvious is that, when people get sick, they will be able to get stuff that works, not what is currently available, which many people regard as being little better than a placebo. In addition to that, it shows we have a Government that, when a law doesn’t work, actually gets rid of it. It shows we have a Government that is prepared to try and make life better and easier for New Zealanders rather than constantly coming up with obstructions and objections.

Todd Stephenson: Why does the Government think this law needs to be changed?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The law was put in place with the intention of stopping gangs supplying methamphetamine; unfortunately, the law did not succeed. The evidence for that is that, since pseudoephedrine cough and cold medicine has been denied from New Zealanders through an effective ban, the price of P has actually gone down, the availability has gone up, and the volume consumed has gone up. The law simply has not worked, and, therefore, we’re getting rid of a law that doesn’t work, so that life can be better and easier for New Zealanders, including getting better cough and cold medication.

Todd Stephenson: Will the Government be keeping in place safeguards for the sale and supply of pseudoephedrine?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes, indeed. The law change is a very simple one. It is changing pseudoephedrine from being a class B drug to a class C drug. There will still be significant restrictions around the importation, storage, and possession of pseudoephedrine within New Zealand. There will also be a change in the medicine’s regulations so that pseudoephedrine goes from being a prescription-only drug to a restricted pharmaceutical. That means that, while you will not need a prescription from a GP, you will have to buy it directly from a pharmacist. These restrictions are designed to make sure that there are not negative spillovers from giving everyday New Zealanders the convenience of getting some decent cough and cold meds.

Todd Stephenson: When will pseudoephedrine be back on the shelves in New Zealand, providing effective treatments for Kiwis?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, the exact timing depends on two things: first, the Parliament changing the law, and the Government making sure that the regulations are in place and Medsafe is prepared to give the approvals to the products—their approvals have lapsed since they were, effectively, banned over a decade ago; second, it will depend on pharmaceutical companies making applications to Medsafe and being ready to sell the pharmaceuticals that people need by this winter, when the most demand is in place. We’ve had official advice that that may not take place—the full availability—until 2025, but I can tell you that Medsafe, myself, and everyone on the Government side of this operation are doing everything we can to make sure that good cold and flu meds are on the shelves by this winter, when people need them.

Question No. 5—Social Development and Employment

5. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she received, if any, advising her of the possible child poverty impacts of indexing benefits to inflation rather than wages?

The publicly available report states that preliminary modelling shows indexing benefits to inflation in isolation as a policy, in the absence of any other Government policy interventions before 2028, may increase the number of children captured by the before-housing-cost moving line measure and after-housing-cost fixed line measures of child poverty by 7,000. The Government will, however, make other policy interventions before 2028, such as delivering tax relief and stopping petrol tax hikes, that will significantly help families with children in modest to low income households, who we know have been doing it particularly tough during the cost of living crisis.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Given that net average wage growth for the purposes of annual general adjustments is now due to outstrip inflation this year, have the reports she’s received updated the forecast child poverty figures?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We haven’t received updated child poverty figures. Every policy and consideration that we will be making in the months ahead will, but, as I have answered in my primary question, it is not one policy intervention on its own that will support us as a country to lift more children out of poverty; it will be a collection of policies that our Government is committed to taking.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Do any of her reports highlight the disproportionate child poverty impact on disabled children, given that disabled children or children living with a disabled adult are more likely to live in households where an adult is on benefit?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I don’t think it would be a surprise to this House that there are certain groups where there is a higher risk of children living in poverty, and our Government is focused on those, whether it is Pasifika, Māori, and disabled, that we will of course take into consideration with any policies that we are putting in place to reduce child poverty.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Do any of the reports she has received highlight the disproportionate poverty impact on sole mothers and their children, given that 80 percent of sole parent benefit recipients are women?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Absolutely, and what this Government won’t do is allow the number of children in benefit-dependent homes to grow by 45,000 like that Government did.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Are Ministry of Social Development figures correct that indexing benefits to wage inflation had moved over 5,000 children out of poverty, and, if yes, why is she hell-bent on making changes that increase rather than decrease the number of New Zealand children living in poverty?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: This side of the House is really committed to reducing the number of children living in child poverty. We know there’s not one silver bullet; it’s not one policy on its own that will make a difference. Addressing the cost of living crisis, providing tax relief, and getting on top of ridiculous tax hikes for petrol are very practical things that will help low and middle income families as well as those who are receiving benefits.

Question No. 6—Health

6. to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has the Minister made in relation to improving access to breast cancer screening for New Zealand women?

Last week, the Government took its first steps towards delivering on our promise to extend free breast cancer screening to women aged 70 to 74. Breast cancer is the most common cancer amongst New Zealand women, and that’s why the Government prioritised this crucial initiative in our 100-day plan. I’d like to thank the Breast Cancer Foundation for their continued advocacy in this area.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What are the next steps for the extension of breast cancer screening services?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: There is a lot of work to be done in terms of preparation. We need to grow our workforce and support them with the infrastructure required to expand our screening services. Health New Zealand is also working through a process to ready the whole health system for the additional women that will take up screening each year and for those who will, sadly, require treatment. We’re ambitious to advance this as soon as possible.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What benefits does he anticipate from extending the age for breast cancer screening?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I’m advised that, once the programme is fully implemented, the extension will mean that women will become eligible for two to three extra mammograms, on average. This means around 120,000 additional women will be eligible for screening every two years. Catching more cancers early means better treatment outcomes. The extension could potentially save 65 lives per year; however, on our current settings, that relates to 22 lives saved. That’s not just 22 women but also their family, friends, and loved ones who won’t have to endure the emotional impact of cancer.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What feedback has the Minister received on this announcement?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I have received lots of feedback regarding this announcement. The chair of the Breast Cancer Foundation, Justine Smyth, has said, “We’ve been asking for the breast cancer screening age to be raised to 74 for the past eight years, so it’s fantastic to see work is finally underway on this.” This support has been echoed by many members of the public and health professionals.

Question No. 7—Health

7. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that there is a health “workforce crisis” and does he accept the estimates of health workforce shortages Te Whatu Ora published in July 2023 as an accurate reflection of the shortages at the time they were published?

Yes, I stand by my statement that there is a workforce crisis, as I’ve said repeatedly for some time. To the second part of the question, yes, particularly where the document states, “[There] has been pressure on our health workforce which needs to lift; we have heard this message clearly from our workforce.” I have heard that message also.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: What urgent actions will he take to address workforce shortages that will have an impact this year?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We’re very encouraged by the increase in general practice registrars who actually start either this week or next week, which, I understand, is the largest cohort of general practice registrars, which will then feed through into the general practice network, so I’m very pleased with that.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Would he like to congratulate the Government that implemented that?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Yes. Thank you.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that, after gaining office, talking up a crisis, he did not receive a briefing on the health workforce from Te Whatu Ora in his first two months in office?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I would need to see the exact dates that I’ve received briefings, but I’ve made it very clear to Health New Zealand and to the Ministry of Health that the health workforce is our number one priority, and they clearly have that in their headlights.

Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment

8. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How many jobseeker beneficiaries, if any, get jobs as a direct result of attending work seminars they are required to attend to avoid benefit sanctions?

The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) cannot provide this exact measure, as the member was told by the previous Government. This new coalition Government is not content to allow New Zealanders to languish on the jobseeker benefit without proactive support or checking in on their progress to find work. We want them to experience the independence and opportunities that come from work. That’s why yesterday I announced that 2,500 additional people will receive greater face-to-face support through regular check-ins.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How can she be confident, then, that these work seminars support people into employment when MSD does not measure any outcomes after attending seminars and people risk losing their benefit if they do not engage with them?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: It’s not that the outcomes aren’t measured; it’s just that they are not accumulated across every single beneficiary. So if we look at a recent seminar in the top of the South Island, 82 Kiwi job seekers turned up to that seminar; 64 secured interviews. Had they not been there, they would not have taken that very important step of securing an interview that, for some, would have led to employment.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What outcomes, then, are measured as a direct result of people attending those work seminars?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The outcome is just that it’s not collated as an entire figure. What we do know—and a recent one that I attended in Christchurch showed a number of people who are getting additional support, whether it is being connected to training opportunities, in this instance through Te Pūkenga—employers come along to those work seminars to find staff and find employees. In another business that I visited on the same day in Christchurch, they have employed over 220 people off the jobseeker benefit, who they find at these work seminars.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How can she be confident, then, that increasing benefit sanctions will support people into secure, sustainable employment when MSD does not know if any of the people attending work seminars to avoid sanctions, actually, as a direct result, get a job, not just an interview?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: When job seekers come into the range of seminars that are available—formal and informal—in Work and Income offices up and down this country, they are getting assistance with interview techniques, they are getting connected to employers, they are getting assistance with CVs. For some of them, it’s getting them on the path to getting a driver’s licence. These are practical things that address the barriers that some people face on their path to employment. There is not one thing that will support, unfortunately, the 190,000 that are on the jobseeker benefit currently. We are doing everything we can. Yesterday was a first important step in the reset of the welfare system to support more people off welfare and into work, and obligations and consequences are part of that.

Ricardo Menéndez March: If she is unable to name direct, related outcomes to attending work seminars—people getting a job—is it that she just wants to punish people further into poverty by increasing sanctions for not engaging with workshops that have no evidence of working?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’ve given multiple examples today. I’ve got a list of others if the House would like me to go through them, but the reality is, when someone is on a path to work, there are sensible, practical things they need to do. One of them is having a CV, one of them is knowing what to do in an interview, one of them might be to go on and do some further training, and one of them is to actually meet employers and to connect with them, to then be offered a position that leads to a job. I’ve given the example of one employer alone in Christchurch: 220 job seekers that that business has taken on. It is only fair to workers all over New Zealand that they know that those they are supporting on the welfare system are doing their bit to support them to find work: turning up to a seminar and getting support and assistance face to face with a great team of Work and Income workers is a great step. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait for a bit of silence.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does the Minister disagree, then, with MSD officials who told the select committee that outcomes are not measured?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I disagree that the total number of outcomes from work seminars across the country is not collated centrally. That is the point that I made in my primary answer. But, of course, we are very excited about the opportunity with this coalition Government to get more of the 190,000 New Zealanders who are currently on the jobseeker benefit into work, and particularly, I’ve got a message for the parents of young people who go on to welfare under the age of 20: we will not sit and let those young people rot on welfare for 24 years.

Question No. 9—Health

9. to the Minister of Health: Is he committed to delivering positive Māori health outcomes; if so, what are those outcomes?

To the first arm of the question, yes, and to the second arm, I am committed to lifting health outcomes for Māori, and this will be informed by those outcomes identified in Pae 2 in the Whakamaua action plan, including outcomes such as diabetes.

Hon Peeni Henare: What percentage of uplifts in Māori immunisation rates has the Minister seen following his $50 million announcement on 21 December last year, and what changes does he expect to see in the 12 months to follow?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The immunisation project that we announced before Christmas was simultaneously with an announcement around the new immunisation information technology programme, which will give us much more granular and real-time levels of immunisation rates. As a consequence of that, I’ve been asked for weekly monitoring of those new rates, and we’ll be setting what those objectives will be when we announce our priorities and Government policy statement.

Hon Peeni Henare: Will the Minister meaningfully consider the recommendations following the Waitangi Tribunal’s urgent inquiry into the dissolution of Te Aka Whai Ora, and will he commit to meeting with the claimants?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Those discussions with the Waitangi Tribunal are sub judice, but, in a very general sense, I would say that we’ll take on board all discussions and all dialogue from all parties.

Hon Peeni Henare: What consultation, if any, has the Minister undertaken with hauora providers, iwi, hapū, community organisations, and urban Māori organisations regarding the disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I have had discussions in a general sense with Māori, with iwi leaders, and with providers, both on Zoom and in person, and we have discussed what a different future might look like with the dissolution of the Māori Health Authority.

Question No. 10—Social Development and Employment

10. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What actions, if any, has she taken to date that aim to reduce welfare dependency in New Zealand?

Our coalition Government is not prepared to accept the welfare system we inherited, where work-ready job seekers were forecast to spend, on average, 13 years on a benefit, and teenagers could become trapped on welfare for 24 years of their working lives. We have higher aspirations for the prospects of New Zealanders. So, last Friday, I formalised with the Ministry of Social Development our Government’s view that all existing obligations and sanctions are applied. If job seekers fail to attend job interviews, complete their pre-employment tasks, or don’t take available work, consequences should be applied. Yesterday, I also announced that, from June, new work check-ins will begin for job seekers so that we can better support people to shift into work.

Joseph Mooney: Why has the Government taken these first steps to reset the welfare system?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: New Zealanders are better off in work, if they can work. Work improves financial independence, as well as their social and health outcomes. Unfortunately, the number of people on the jobseeker benefit has increased by 70,000 during the past six years, while sanctions applied for breaches of work obligations decreased by 35,259. Sanctions are one part of the tool kit in the welfare system. Because people are better off in work, we want to ensure that the welfare system motivates people to move into available jobs.

Joseph Mooney: What is the purpose of the work check-ins the Minister has announced as the first steps of the Government’s reset of the welfare system?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The number of people who have spent longer than one year on the jobseeker benefit has increased by 40,000 by September 2017. Vicious cycles—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How much?

Hon Member: Say that again.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —40,000—of welfare dependency trap adults and children in hardship and erode New Zealanders’ potential. This Government wants a more proactive welfare system that ensures people are making good progress to become work-ready. The check-ins will provide a way to see if job seekers have been fulfilling their obligations such as making regular job applications, as well as ensuring they are getting effective support to help them shift into work.

Joseph Mooney: Who will be required to attend the work check-ins?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: People who have been on the jobseeker benefit for six months will be eligible for the proactive work check-ins. The longer people spend on benefits the harder it is to re-enter the workforce. We will not stand by and see New Zealanders’ potential go to waste. By intervening earlier, we can reduce the risk of people becoming dependent on welfare long term and help them experience the independence and opportunities that work provides.

Question No. 11—RMA Reform

11. to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the Government’s proposed approach to fast-track consenting that “This is not new, by the way, because the COVID fast-track legislation also listed projects in the legislation and also set up a process for Ministers to refer projects to an expert consenting panel”?

Yes.

Hon James Shaw: Can he confirm that a fundamental difference to the COVID-19 fast-track legislation is that, under the proposed new legislation, the ultimate power to approve listed projects will lie with Ministers rather than with an expert consenting panel?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, final design parameters of the scheme are yet to be confirmed by Cabinet, and when the bill is ready for tabling and release, it will be done.

Hon James Shaw: Is he concerned that granting Ministers the power to fast track consents for projects, including those that have previously been declined under the existing COVID legislation because of environmental risk, is, in the words of the CEO of the Environmental Defence Society, “a return to the use of unbridled executive power [that] we thought we’d left behind.”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, and I’m not going to take lectures from Gary Taylor around what we should or shouldn’t do in this country. What I am concerned about in this country is that the time it’s taken to consent major infrastructure has doubled in the last five years, and we now spend, as a country—

Hon David Parker: That’s not true. It’s not true.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It is true.

Hon David Parker: Fast track sped it up.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’m quoting a report from an entity set up by the last Government, the Infrastructure Commission. So the member might want to say it’s not true, but it’s a publicly available report from Sense Partners. What I am concerned about is that we spend $1.3 billion a year in this country consenting infrastructure—by most measures, some of the most expensive consenting processes in the developed world. I want more renewable energy in this country and I want to build roads for the future and public transport projects, but it is near impossible to do things expeditiously, efficiently, and in a cost-effective way because of the Resource Management Act. We’re going to fix it.

Hon James Shaw: Can he confirm that there are no fewer than 59 projects currently proposed for inclusion in the primary legislation?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I think it’s actually more than 59, to be honest, because we are looking at a vast array of projects, and the precise list and exactly how those processes work with the process we’re setting up will be a decision for Cabinet, and it’s not too far away.

Hon Shane Jones: Can the Minister confirm, during that brief period of enlightenment when the earlier bill was passed, that there were actual projects in the bill that were consented by Parliament?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, indeed, I can confirm that there were 17 listed projects in the COVID fast-track bill passed by the last Parliament: Te Ara Tupua, the Ngauranga to Petone shared path; the Wellington metro upgrade; Papakura to Pukekohe rail electrification, which I know the Hon Judith Collins is a big fan of; Britomart station eastern upgrade; Unitec Residential Development; Papakura to Drury South State Highway 1 improvements; a water storage reservoir in Kaikohe; the Queenstown Arterials Project; and a papa kāinga development in Kaitāia—more housing up Far North, which everyone supports. In fact, there are six papa kāinga developments on this list. A whole range of proposals were supported by the previous Government, and we are adopting a similar procedure with this fast-track legislation and going further and faster to make sure we can get stuff done in this country.

Hon James Shaw: Will he rule out including the Te Kuha coal mine in the list of projects to be approved in the primary legislation?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, decisions as to what projects will be included in the legislation are matters for Cabinet.

Hon James Shaw: So, given the extraordinary powers that have been granted to Ministers in this legislation, what measures is he taking to ensure that the list of projects that Ministers approve for inclusion in the legislation are not connected to people or organisations that are significant donors to coalition parties?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Hang on a minute. Wait on. Just reword the question because you can’t put an inference in a question like that.

Hon James Shaw: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wasn’t inferring; I was asking the Minister who is responsible for drafting the legislation, given that this legislation grants extraordinary powers that we haven’t seen in four decades for Ministers to personally approve projects—I’m asking what measures he’s looking at to ensure that there is accountability. I mean, that—

SPEAKER: Well, the problem is, the Hon James Shaw, that the Minister started his answer by saying that the bill is not yet in a form that anything could be asserted against it.

Hon James Shaw: And that’s my point—that in the design stage of the legislation, surely it is incumbent upon the Minister, at that point rather than after the legislation has been drafted, to ensure that there are appropriate checks and balances.

SPEAKER: All I’m saying is have another crack at asking the question, in a slightly different way.

Hon James Shaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, can the Minister, given the extraordinary powers that are being granted to Ministers to approve projects in the primary legislation, without the ability of an expert consenting panel to decline those projects—what measures is he taking to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, there are a variety of hypotheses in that question, which may or may not turn out to be true. The member will have to wait for the final design of the fast-track procedure, but, as I’ve said twice now in response to previous questions, there are a variety of mechanisms through the Cabinet process and the parliamentary process and electoral law processes designed to make sure that the type of implications that the member is making are handled appropriately.

Question No. 12—Transport

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

Yes, including my statement that Auckland light rail was an irresponsible project that would have cost taxpayers up to $29.2 billion, and which the last Government failed to deliver a single metre of track on despite spending $228 million on this project. We’ve already scrapped this wasteful project, which is starting to address the last Government’s $200 billion funding gap in the transport budget.

Tangi Utikere: How does he reconcile his statement that he will not tax Aucklanders an additional 11.5c per litre on fuel to fund “more cycle lanes, redlight cameras, speed [bumps,] and lowering speed limits across the city” when Auckland Council information shows that, of the total funding available for regional fuel tax projects, safety and active transport initiatives represented just 16 percent of the regional fuel tax project spending?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, it’s great to be talking about the regional fuel tax again in Parliament and how we’re going to lower the cost of living for Aucklanders, and I’d make the point to the member that there is a range of categories which we will not be funding, which includes bus priority improvements, bus infrastructure, the cycling and the speed bump category—which comes under road safety—and active transport, but we will be making sure that the remaining funding goes towards the projects which the mayor and I have discussed, which includes the Eastern Busway, the City Rail Link, and local roading improvements.

Tangi Utikere: Hmm. Why does the Minister consider it appropriate to rush through a bill under urgency to cancel the very revenue stream for a number of projects that Aucklanders are relying on—projects that Auckland Council have determined will meet the pressing needs that Auckland faces now and into the future—without any commitment to any additional new funding?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, this might sound really, really radical, but we went to the election with a campaign promise, Aucklanders overwhelmingly voted for the coalition Government, and we’re delivering it.

Tangi Utikere: Why won’t the Minister give any certainty around what additional Government funding he will give to meet the clear shortfall that he has now left to Auckland Council to deliver on the very projects that they need?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, we’ve said the other projects are not priorities for this Government, but we will ensure the remaining funding—over two years’ worth of regional fuel tax money taxed from Aucklanders, sitting in a bank account—will go towards delivering and completing the Eastern Busway, the City Rail Link trains and stabling, and local roading upgrades.

Shanan Halbert: Does the Minister accept that Aucklanders saving 11.5c per litre means very little to them if they then face significant thousands of dollars in rates increases to fund investment in vital transport and water infrastructure projects, or is he quite happy to continue to pull the rug out from under Mayor Wayne Brown?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the Aucklanders—as I said, they overwhelmingly voted for the coalition Government. We are delivering on our promises to provide cost of living relief for the motorists of Auckland, and I’m not going to be lectured from an Opposition over there which wants to spend 11.5c per litre on speed bumps.

Tangi Utikere: Will he guarantee, right here, right now, that all stages of the Eastern Busway and the Glenvar Road - East Coast Road adjustment projects will be completed, and, if not, why not?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We are allocating the money—the remaining $340 million—plus the money that will be collected between now and 1 July to those projects to make sure they are being delivered.

Hon Chris Bishop: Does the Minister agree that it is unusual to see a Government—particularly in transport, in light of recent history—promise something and then actually deliver it?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I’ve said—

SPEAKER: No that’s—no, thank you.

Tangi Utikere: Point of order. I seek leave to table a not publicly available table from Auckland Council that shows that the total percentage of safety and active transport initiatives make up 16 percent of regional fuel tax - enabled project spending.

SPEAKER: Why is it not publicly available?

Tangi Utikere: I’m advised that it is not publicly available. It has been obtained—

SPEAKER: How did you—

Tangi Utikere: —from me—

SPEAKER: How did you get it?

Tangi Utikere: —obtained by Auckland Council. [Interruption] Well, the Minister, earlier last week, asked Auckland Council to get the information—so I did.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

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

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions.