Wednesday, 2 August 2023 [Volume 769] The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. Hon JENNY SALESA (Assistant Speaker—Labour): E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Amene. [Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King, and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the welfare, peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.] PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of Trevarr McCarthy requesting that the House allow parents with shared care the same entitlements under the Social Security Act. SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers. CLERK: Report of the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care Stolen Lives, Marked Souls, July 2023 2023/24 statement of performance expectations for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority. SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Reports of the Environment Committee on the: petition of David Famularo petition of Erica Rowlands petition of Hannah Blumhardt report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Long-Term Insights Briefing 2023. SPEAKER: The briefing is set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced. The House comes to oral questions. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Prime Minister 1. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the actions by this Government, which have led to record numbers of New Zealanders in work. Statistics New Zealand data out today confirmed that the economy has added 113,000 jobs in the June year. But that, of course, is not all; data released today also confirms that wages continue to outpace inflation, with average hourly wages rising by 6.9 percent to $39.53. We know that there are many Kiwis who are doing it tough out there, but the Government is continuing to work hard to lower costs, ensure that Kiwis stay in work, and that they get better paid. Christopher Luxon: Was Grant Robertson right when he said in May that "we will return to surplus in 2025/26", or will the pre-election fiscal update show bigger deficits and more debt? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first of the question: at the time the statement was made, yes. Christopher Luxon: Has he received any advice from the finance Minister or any officials suggesting the return to surplus will be delayed again? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, of course, the PREFU numbers—the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update—are put together by the Treasury, independently of the Government. Christopher Luxon: So are you saying that you've received no advice from officials or from the Minister of Finance on whether the return to surplus will be delayed again? Hon Grant Robertson: It will be with your spending plans. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It certainly would be if the member was the Prime Minister and was spending the huge amounts of money that the National Party have been promising to spend up and down the country, with no idea how they're going to pay for it. But, of course, I have regular conversations with the Minister of Finance about the state of the Government's finances. Christopher Luxon: Why has the return to surplus been delayed twice in two years, and are more delays, debt, and deficits on the cards when he opens the books next month? Hon Grant Robertson: Perhaps look around the world. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'd encourage the member to look around the world at the deteriorating financial position around the globe. And I also might like to remind the member that our track record of producing surpluses is a significantly better one than the last National Government, where Bill English, year after year, promised that he was going to turn a surplus, and it took him a lot longer to do that than what he'd promised New Zealanders he would actually do. Christopher Luxon: Why does he constantly blame global factors for his failure on the economy, when New Zealand is in a recession and set to borrow $20 billion this year but Australia is growing and running a big surplus? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The reason that New Zealand is in a technical recession—if the member wants to read the statistics—is because of a natural weather event called a "cyclone". Christopher Luxon: Is he aware that that natural weather event happened long after the country went into recession? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member is simply economically illiterate if he's going to make that claim. I'd be interested to know which quarters he is talking about, because the most recent quarterly statistics show that, actually, it was the cyclone that was the difference between New Zealand having negative GDP growth or positive GDP growth. Christopher Luxon: Doesn't Australia's surplus show that countries in our part of the world can face a pandemic and global challenges but still come out the other side when they properly manage the economy instead of running it into recession like he has? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No; it shows that they're different economies, that the nature of their economies is different, and that New Zealand does not have the minerals part of its export market that Australia does, where they've been doing very well recently. We're different economies. Christopher Luxon: Can he confirm his Government will spend more this year making interest payments on debt than on primary schools or on the Police? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course debt repayments have gone up as, globally, the cost of servicing debt has gone up. Interestingly, then, I'd be interested to know how the member's going to pay for his nearly $10 billion worth of debt for roads, given that he doesn't seem to have made any allocation for paying back the debt. He thinks that somehow the private equity markets are just going to give New Zealanders $10 billion in funding to build roads and not want any return from that investment. Question No. 2—Workplace Relations and Safety 2. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What announcements has she made about addressing modern slavery? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): On Friday, I announced that the Government has worked alongside business to deliver on our commitment to address modern slavery. We will introduce new legislation that requires organisations and businesses to be transparent about their operations and supply chains through a new public register. This new disclosure system will be among the strongest in the world at tackling modern slavery. This is not only about making sure people are treated fairly; it's also about doing good business. Angela Roberts: How big of an issue is modern slavery? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Since the pandemic we've seen modern slavery bloom globally. The International Labour Organization and Walk Free now estimate that 50 million people are in modern slavery on any given day. World Vision estimates Kiwi households are inadvertently paying an average of $34 each week to industries whose products are implicated in modern slavery. While we rank 12th lowest out of 160 countries for prevalence of modern slavery domestically, we know there is real risk that Kiwi businesses and organisations must address in their supply chains and operations. Angela Roberts: Who was involved in designing this disclosure system? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Government convened a Modern Slavery Leadership Advisory Group chaired by former Air New Zealand CEO Rob Fyfe, who bought industry knowledge and expertise to help inform what steps we could take to address modern slavery. In 2021, the Government received an open letter signed by over 100 businesses and a petition signed by 37,000 people calling for this modern slavery legislation. The public consultation also received over 5,000 submissions, and an overwhelming 95 percent of submitters supported the proposed disclosure responsibilities. We have heard the calls for modern slavery legislation loud and clear— Christopher Luxon: Heard the calls after 6 years—you've heard the calls! Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: —from those that this legislation directly affects, and the other side of the House who are interjecting, they didn't do it during their nine years. Angela Roberts: Why is this important for our trading relationship? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We have commitments in our free-trade agreements with the United Kingdom and the European Union to take steps to prevent modern slavery in our supply chains and promote responsible business conduct. A lack of action would be detrimental to our trading relationship. It's important we continue to bolster New Zealand's transparent and ethical reputation within our export markets, and on the global stage. Question No. 3—Health (Māori Health) 3. BROOKE van VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health): Can she confirm that the Ministry of Health allocated funding to the National Hauora Coalition in 2019 which is being used to offer the incentive of two $50 Prezzy Cards to expectant or new mothers for attending a pregnancy assessment and a 6-week assessment, and can she confirm that eligibility for the payment is determined by whether the expectant mother identified as Māori when they enrolled at their practice? Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health)): I am advised that the Manatū Hauora allocated one-off funding to the National Hauora Coalition in 2019 to create and support Best Start Kōwae. Best Start Kōwae are pregnancy assessment tools that facilitate best-practice assessments for all pregnant individuals and their babies throughout their pregnancy journey. It was designed to provide high-quality, standardised assessment to help improve the worst health outcomes such as the low lead maternity carer engagement and the low pertussis vaccination uptake by Māori hapū māmā and their pēpē. As a small part of the initiative, there is an opt-in incentive of a $50 Prezzy Card to expectant new Māori mothers for attending a pregnancy assessment, and another $50 Prezzy Card when the baby attends a six-week assessment. In answer to the second part of the question, the eligibility for the payment is determined by whether the expectant mother and/or baby identify as Māori, to address the well-known and specific poorer perinatal and baby outcomes they experience. However, practitioners are able to use the tool with any pregnant person. Brooke van Velden: Why did the Ministry of Health reassign a $3.4 million underspend from the community services card subsidy scheme—a scheme which benefits the economically vulnerable—to a scheme which exclusively benefits mothers from one ethnic group? Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: As I said in my primary answer, the Best Start Kōwae is an assessment tool that is available for all. Brooke van Velden: Does the Minister believe that it is acceptable that two pregnant women who both have high heath needs and who are both facing financial hardship could be treated differently by being offered Prezzy Cards when it comes to receiving the incentive payment because of their ethnicity? Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: I again refer to my primary answer, where the Best Start Kōwae assessment tool is available to all. Brooke van Velden: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question is specifically about the payment incentive, not the Best Start Kōwae. The Best Start Kōwae programme is free pregnancy checks for all women, but the payment incentive part of that programme is exclusively for one ethnic group—that's the part I'm referring to. SPEAKER: Are you speaking to that point of order? Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: No. SPEAKER: Either way, the question has been addressed, in my opinion. The purpose of supplementaries is to use them to find out more information. You might want to use your further supplementaries to do so. Brooke van Velden: Why, then, does the Minister suggest this is open to all pregnant women when her responses to parliamentary written questions No. 21394 and No. 21391 suggest that the eligibility depends "on whether the relevant individual identifies as Māori"? Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: To answer the member's question, I stand by the answers that I've given previously. In terms of Best Start Kōwae, the practitioners and practices who have implemented Best Start Kōwae—which is available to all—receive after each assessment a $100 payment as part of the Best Start pregnancy assessment, and a $50 payment per the Best Start baby assessment. That is available to all. Over $2.5 million of the $3.5 million referred to earlier was to set up the programme to be available for all. Incentive payments are paid to those practices which are implementing the tool, which is available to all. Hon Peeni Henare: Can the Minister confirm that the national hauora Māori coalition serves all communities? Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: I can. Question No. 4—Finance 4. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister of Finance: Kia orana. What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Kia orana. The resilience of the labour market is continuing to support the economy. Statistics New Zealand reported today that an extra 28,000 people were employed in the June quarter and 113,000 more for the year. There is now a record high 2.927 million people in work. The average hourly wage rose 6.9 percent to $39.53, compared with inflation at 6 percent. Unemployment did rise slightly, to 3.6 percent, due to a rise in the working-age population and people making themselves available for work. We know that many Kiwi families are doing it tough in the face of cost of living pressures, but they do so while in paid work and with wages keeping pace with inflation. This does help ease some of the pressure that they are under. Ingrid Leary: What else did the report say about the labour market? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Looking at some of the details, Statistics New Zealand reports that the participation rate rose to 72.4 percent and the employment rate to 69.8 percent—record highs for both since the series began in 1986. The employment rate for women increased to 65.7 percent, the highest rate since the series began. The employment rate for men increased to 74.4 percent, the highest rate since 1987. Employment in tourism-related industries returned to pre-COVID levels, rising 11 percent annually to 275,300. Since 2017, the economy has added 322,000 jobs. Unemployment at 3.6 percent is low compared to where it's been in the recent past and below the 4.6 percent it stood at when we took office. Ingrid Leary: What reactions has he seen to the labour market report? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Westpac's economists said that the June quarter labour market figures pointed to very strong employment growth. ANZ's economists said that the strength in the jobs market suggested that demand for labour had remained resilient, while BNZ's economists said the strength in employment was further evidence that soaring labour supply, driven by migration, was taking pressure off businesses and helping them fill vacancies. Ingrid Leary: How does New Zealand's labour market compare internationally? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: According to Statistics New Zealand, on comparable measures, New Zealand's 3.4 percent unemployment rate matches Australia and the US and is below the 4 percent in the UK and the 5.2 percent in Canada. The OECD average is 4.8 percent. In terms of employment rates, we rank third in the OECD. The labour market and the economy have been resilient, but there is a slowing global economy, which will affect our prospects. Last week, the IMF issued warnings about the downside risks around China's economy and the global outlook. The Government is doing its bit in response to this and taking pressure off by restraining spending. However, further hard choices may be required as we navigate a pathway through this deteriorating global environment. This is a tough time for many households, but the Government has stepped up to support them, and we will continue to invest in conditions to support people into work and drive higher wages for New Zealanders. Question No. 5—Finance 5. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement yesterday that "the Government has completed its tax work programme"; if so, what potential new taxation measures were discussed in the seven tax reports the Government refused to release as part of the Budget 2023 proactive release? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes. The Government is not working on anything new which has not already been clearly signalled. With regards to the seven reports, these relate to ongoing work on multinational taxation, which the member knows has long been part of the work programme. Due to the nature of the ongoing work and its potential implications on international relations and commercial sensitivity, it has been determined that it is not in the public interest to release further details on this for now. Nicola Willis: Has the Government considered proposals to make New Zealand income earners pay more tax? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Obviously we've had a significant amount of discussion about proposals that have been rejected. But I think what the member means is "in addition to that", and the answer is no. Nicola Willis: Has the Minister considered proposals to make New Zealand income earners—PAYE earners—pay more tax? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I've just answered that question. The answer is no. Hon Damien O'Connor: Has the Minister done any work on increasing GST and what the implications of that might be to the New Zealand economy and people? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. But obviously there have been some Governments in the past who said that they weren't going to increase GST and then they promptly did that. Obviously, that's not something that we are considering. Nicola Willis: When the Minister says that no he hasn't considered proposals to increase income tax, is he telling the House that he has not taken advice on proposals to increase the tax that higher-income earners pay, including by shifting thresholds? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I indicated to the member in the answer to the supplementary question before this one, the member is referring to things that are in the material that's been released to her—we've had that discussion previously. Beyond that, the answer is no. Nicola Willis: Has the Minister taken any official advice on the effects of removing GST from fruit and vegetables? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. Nicola Willis: Has the Minister taken advice from officials on measures to reduce taxation that would be funded by him restraining his own wasteful spending; or is it, in fact, the case that the only way he will ever consider any form of tax reduction is by forcing someone else to pay more? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member knows because it's been released publicly, anything to do with that has to be funded. What I would do, if I were the member, would be to concentrate on trying to find how she's going to pay for her promises rather than the Perry Mason routine. Nicola Willis: Is it the Minister's position that every dollar appropriated in his Budget is going to its best purpose, there is no wasteful or inefficient spending, and New Zealanders don't deserve a tax cut? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: My position is that New Zealanders deserve quality public services. They deserve a Government that invests in health and education, they deserve a Government that builds State houses, and they deserve a Government that lifts children out of poverty. I suggest, again, to the member that her focus should be working out how she's going to pay for tax cuts, because otherwise it's cuts to every one of those public services that people will get from National. Question No. 6—Housing 6. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has she made regarding affordable housing? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): On Sunday, I announced a number of key changes to the Progressive Home Ownership scheme, or the PHO. PHO helps people who would otherwise struggle to get a mortgage to buy their own homes and give their families security. Our landmark PHO scheme will now reach more potential first-home buyers by allowing existing homes to be bought through the scheme, increasing the income cap, and allowing intergenerational families to apply as a group. This means more homes to choose from in more locations and will help make homeownership a reality for more New Zealanders. Angie Warren-Clark: What progress has been made with the Progressive Home Ownership scheme so far? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Since the PHO scheme was launched in 2020, hundreds of eligible families who would otherwise never have been able to buy their own home have now been able to do so, when they have been able to go and get a house built. So far, 978 homes have been contracted with the support of the PHO Fund, and 512 households have moved into their new homes. The changes I announced this week will assist as many people as possible into homeownership and ensure that the programme remains effective in the current economic environment. Angie Warren-Clark: Who will benefit most from the changes to the Progressive Home Ownership scheme? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I've met people whose lives are transformed by the opportunities offered by Progressive Home Ownership. The changes will provide further help to more potential home buyers who fall outside of the banks' criteria for lending. The inclusion of existing homes in the scheme will provide better opportunities for those with larger or intergenerational households, and it will mean those living in areas where there aren't as many new builds being delivered, such as rural areas, can purchase homes through the PHO. Angie Warren-Clark: What reaction has she seen from the sector? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: From what I have seen, the reaction from the sector to the changes has been positive. For example, I heard Julie Scott, the executive officer of the Queenstown Lakes Community Housing Trust, say in an interview with Mike Hosking on Newstalk ZB—hello, Mike; I know you're listening—that she was a big fan of the fund and that she thinks these changes will make a positive difference to enabling it to be rolled out at a faster pace. Angie Warren-Clark: What recent announcements has she made regarding the Affordable Housing Fund? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: On Sunday, I also announced that more affordable rentals are being built with Government support from the Affordable Housing Fund. The Government is enabling 92 affordable rentals around the country through six new partnerships through the fund. These projects are at various stages of development and will be delivered between July 2023 and June 2027 in Auckland, Rotorua, Hastings, Wellington, and Nelson, where there is significant rental stress. Question No. 7—Transport 7. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Transport: How much money has been spent on consultants for Auckland light rail and Let's Get Wellington Moving since 26 October 2017, and how much money has been spent on construction activities for these projects during this time frame? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I am advised that, between 2015-16 and 2022-23, $69.1 million has been spent on consultants on projects within Let's Get Wellington Moving and $4.6 million has been spent on construction. Since 2017, the Government has spent $58.2 million on consultants for Auckland light rail, and, as the member knows, main construction works are yet to commence there. These consultants were engaged to undertake roles such as planning, engineering, consenting, and financing activities that typically occur before construction. In the absence of a ministry of works, which the member might well be contemplating, this work has to be done by consultants. For the member's benefit, how major transport programmes work, including mass rapid transit systems, is that before construction can occur, there needs to be investment in design, planning, and consenting, rather than just going ahead with reckons and wish lists. Simeon Brown: Does the Minister think that Let's Get Wellington Moving has its priorities right when it has spent over $114 million so far and it's only been able to deliver a single set of traffic lights in Wellington? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, I think that the priorities of Let's Get Wellington Moving—to make sure that we actually can have good quality public transport across the city, that we can allow people to move across the city, and that we do other improvements for walking and cycling—are good ones. Am I satisfied with the progress of Let's Get Wellington Moving? No, I'm not, and that is why we are moving to advance it. Simeon Brown: Can he confirm reports— Hon Damien O'Connor: Maybe you should have spent a bit more on Transmission Gully! SPEAKER: Order! I'd like to hear the question. Simeon Brown: Thank you. Can he confirm reports that Let's Get Wellington Moving has recently spent over $113,000 on relocating offices, and is it the case that they have failed to get Wellington moving, because they've been too focused moving themselves? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister: no, I can't confirm those reports. What I can, however, confirm is that Let's Get Wellington Moving has not spent any money on consultants to be engaged as part of the Belt and Road Initiative. Simeon Brown: Who is correct: Michael Wood and Grant Robertson, who said in January 2022 that the Government had selected its preferred option of tunnelled light rail in Auckland's CBD to the airport, or the Prime Minister, who said yesterday morning that no decision had been made on the preferred option and route? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member knows, the business case work goes on and the planning work goes on on Auckland light rail. If the member wants to make sure that Aucklanders are forever trapped in gridlock, yes, we could adopt the National Party's policy, but, no, we actually think that Auckland deserves a proper mass rapid transit system. Simeon Brown: How many more years will it take for Auckland to have a business case for Auckland light rail, and is it this Government's priority to get Auckland moving or to get Auckland consulting? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Ooh! On behalf of the Minister, our priority is to make sure that we address the enormous nine years of under-investment in Auckland's transport that we inherited. We'll continue our work on that. Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment 8. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Do special needs grants for dental treatment adequately meet need for dental care, considering 40 percent of adult New Zealanders are unable to afford treatment? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): This Government has shown that it is committed to ensuring New Zealanders have access to dental care when they need it. For the first time in 25 years, we increased the maximum special needs grants for dental treatment from $300 to $1,000 in Budget 2022. This has seen the number of non-recoverable dental grants nearly doubling from 23,025 to 43,479 and the total amount of support provided through the grant increasing nearly five-fold from $6,395,819 to $30,773,018. Previously, you could only receive one dental grant per year, even if it did not reach the $300 limit; now clients can access the grant multiple times in one year up to the value of $1,000. This is making a difference for whānau, but we certainly know there is more to do. Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree that access to preventative treatment, including check-ups, remains unaffordable given the average cost of a check-up is $80; if so, why are check-ups excluded from the dental grants? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I acknowledge that many New Zealanders struggle with the cost of dental care. I spoke about the increase in the grant that we've put in place. I also just need to mention that, alongside that change, we've lifted income limits for hardship support so that more New Zealanders can access grants, including dental grants. Before November 2021, the limits were, for example, $591.20 a week for a single person. We temporarily increased the limits to support New Zealanders through COVID-19, and then that was made permanent from Budget 2022. This now means that a single New Zealander can earn up to $900.93 a week and still access support, such as dental grants. Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she accept that not being able to cover the check-ups can lead to oral health issues going untreated, leading to more severe health issues and expensive medical interventions? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We have made significant changes. I'm not saying that there isn't more to do with regards to dental treatment and access in New Zealand. That can't all come down to the welfare system, though. I think the health system and perhaps even ACC need to take a little responsibility there, and there is some work that needs to be undertaken. We have made significant changes. There is a lot more covered than was previously—including if someone goes to the Ministry of Social Development with a sore tooth, then they will at least get the consultation covered. That wasn't necessarily the case previously. Ricardo Menéndez March: How many people received dental grants out of the 1.5 million people in New Zealand who are unable to afford dental care? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I can't speak about all New Zealanders with regards to dental care, as I am not responsible for the dental care system. I'm responsible for the grants that we provide for the lowest-income New Zealanders with regards to providing them with support and access to some level of dental treatment. And, as I said, it is significantly more than what it was when we came into Government. Ricardo Menéndez March: What would she say to Max, who told us his dental story and said, "I have been living with a tooth that needs a root canal for the last six years. I can't get it pulled out, because I've been already having too many molars pulled out due to Work and Income declining grants. I'm only 32, and I need root canals."? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I empathise with anyone who is struggling to access the dental care that they need, including Max. We have made significant changes through the welfare system. I know that member doesn't believe that they go far enough, but they certainly are a significant start. Question No. 9—Biosecurity 9. ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) to the Minister for Biosecurity: What recent announcements has he made regarding the work to eradicate Mycoplasma bovis from New Zealand? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Biosecurity): Today, I announced that the last known property infected with the cattle disease Mycoplasma bovis has been de-stocked, disinfected, and officially declared disease-free. This is a major milestone in the work towards eradication, and is the first time that we have had no infected properties and no properties under investigation since M. bovis was detected in New Zealand five years ago. I want to acknowledge the hard work and collaboration between the Government, the Ministry for Primary Industries, DairyNZ, and Beef + Lamb New Zealand to bring us to this point, and also acknowledge the sacrifices made by affected farmers, their families, and their communities. It has been a huge effort but, as a result, our goal of a world-first eradication is that much closer. Anna Lorck: What has been achieved since the Mycoplasma bovis eradication programme began in 2018? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: In 2018, alongside our partners DairyNZ and Beef + Lamb New Zealand, this Government made the bold decision to be the first in the world to eradicate Mycoplasma bovis. We made that decision to protect our national herd, our farming businesses, and our international reputation. In the five years since, we have completed more than 3.2 million tests for M. bovis, used movement controls on almost 3,000 farms, culled approximately 184,000 cattle, and cleared 280 infected properties. This has been a massive operation; it has touched almost every farming community across the country—but five years on, I have no doubt that the decisions to eradicate have been the right ones. Anna Lorck: What are the next steps in the plan to eradicate Mycoplasma bovis? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: While we might currently have no infected properties or active investigations, we still have some work ahead to reach our world-first eradication goal. It would not be unexpected to see a small number of cases pop up in the future, but all the indicators from our bulk milk testing and our beef herd surveillance show that our 10-year eradication plan is on track and moving in the right direction. The programme will now move to a national pest management plan with Osprey taking the lead, but that doesn't mean that now is the time to relax. We're only as good as our surveillance and our on-farm records, and it's crucial that we all stay vigilant and keep M .bovis off our farms. Anna Lorck: What does this progress mean for our farmers and our businesses? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: More good news: hitting this milestone shows that our plan is working, and that the hard work from farmers, industry partners, and the Government has made a difference, allowing M. bovis to become an endemic disease. It was estimated to come at the cost of $1.3 billion in lost production in the first 10 years alone. Our progress so far will protect Kiwi farmers and businesses from shouldering these losses throughout the future. It will also protect the health of our herd, our international reputation, and our record export growth. Question No. 10—Police 10. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement, "It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer"; if so, why? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): As with the past 12 times, I stand by my full statement at the time it was given. It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer with a Government on track to deliver 1,800 extra police. I also support the comments recently made by deputy commissioner Jevon McSkimming via email for police to focus on prioritising front-line service delivery. Finally, I stand by this Government's decision to increase Vote Police funding by 50 percent, an increased constabulary by more than 1,800 since coming into Government. That stands in stark contrast to the last Government, who had an effective funding freeze for police and a reduction in the real number of our front-line staff. Hon Mark Mitchell: Does she agree with the Deputy Prime Minister, who said of crime in Auckland "Oh, I wouldn't say it's bad at all."? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: We know that we have an issue with crime, and I think that the complete quote of that member was taken out of context. What that member knows—who frequently uses quotes out of context, as we well know, in this House—is that this Government has a strong track record on delivering and, by doing that, is rolling out situations such as the tactical response model and also by making sure our front line are the best resourced that they ever have been. Hon Mark Mitchell: Does she agree with Police Association president Chris Cahill's assessment that the front line is totally overwhelmed by the increase in crime under this Government? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I know firsthand, from speaking with front-line staff, that the two main demand pressures we see are the increase in family violence reports and also through mental health—two areas which we take seriously and have work programmes in place to make sure front-line police get all the support they need, and also by adequately resourcing the front line. Hon Mark Mitchell: Well, after six years, why haven't you been able to deal with those issues? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: We continue to resource our front line far better than we ever saw that Government do. And we know that what happened under National was that our front line were under-resourced, that those ratios dropped, and that over 30 community police stations across New Zealand were shut. Question No. 9 to Minister—Amended Answer Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Biosecurity): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Look, thank you. Look, I just stand to correct an answer I've just given in the House. I've just realised— SPEAKER: You're seeking leave to do that? Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Look, thank you. In the answer to my first question, I said that M. bovis was detected in New Zealand five years ago. That's not correct: it was actually six years ago—in 2017—under the previous Government. Action began five years ago—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Order! Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: —under this Government. Question No. 11—Housing 11. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Associate Minister of Housing: What is the Government doing to ensure the rights of retirement village residents are protected and enhanced? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Minister of Housing): Meitaki, Mr Speaker. We are committed to ensuring secure, safe, affordable housing for older New Zealanders. Since the Helen Clark Labour Government first introduced legal protections for residents 20 years ago, the retirement village sector has grown substantially. As the sector has grown, concerns about consumer protection have increased. Today, I've released a discussion paper that seeks public views on a review of the legislative framework. There are improvements that can be made to better serve the housing needs of older New Zealanders. Our housing challenges have grown over the generations and we are determined to address them. Tangi Utikere: What are the main objectives of the retirement villages review? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: It is a big decision to move into a retirement village. It is essential that protections for residents and intending residents are strong and working as intended. The overarching objectives of the review are to ensure adequate consumer protections to residents and intending residents; an effective balance between the rights and responsibilities of residents and operators; the ongoing viability of the sector and its ability to provide a range of retirement housing options and consumer choice; and the rights and responsibilities of residents and operators are appropriately defined, including where they may differ for different occupancy rights. Tangi Utikere: Does the review respond to recent concerns raised by the retirement commission and Commerce Commission? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: I acknowledge the work by the retirement commission which has helped to pave the way for the review. It consulted on options for change in 2022. Submissions were sought on issues such as repayment times for capital sums, and weekly fees continuing after terminations. The retirement commission confirmed many issues remained unresolved and problematic. It recommended that a full review of the legislative framework be carried out. The Commerce Commission has also launched an investigation into complaints about unfair terms in occupation rights agreements. That investigation is being conducted independently and at arm's length; it is at an early stage. Its findings might feed into the review but do not impact the consultation phase. Tangi Utikere: Have the proposals in the discussion paper been tested with the sector? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Officials developed the discussion paper working with the retirement commission, Government agencies, and the sector, including both village operators and residents. I acknowledge the important role the sector plays in catering for the needs of older New Zealanders. The current legal framework has supported the significant growth of the industry. The growth of the retirement villages sector should not be at the expense of fair and appropriate legal and consumer protection. I acknowledge that the Retirement Villages Association has driven positive changes in the sector to improve consumer protection. These changes are largely voluntary and only apply to their members. Some changes do not apply to villages with fewer than 50 units. I'm looking forward to submissions from all stakeholders, including residents and village operators. Question No. 12—Children 12. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Minister for Children: Does he stand by all his statements and actions regarding Oranga Tamariki? Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): Yes, in the context they were given—in particular, the move to transfer resources and decision making closer to iwi and communities. There have been nine prototypes and 10 partnerships established, which moves decision making closer to communities and their whānau. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by his statement, in response to allegations of sexual abuse, that care and protection residences need to be shut down "sooner than later"? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes, I do. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What specific progress, if any, has been made to shut down these facilities? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, there's a bit of a process that needs to happen. For example, you can't just close down care and protection residences and put the kids just in the community when they need to be specialised designed homes. We expect them to be— Hon Paul Goldsmith: Aren't you building two new ones? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: —smaller. No, we're not building more care and protection homes. That was a different announcement, Mr Goldsmith. But there has to be a planning process to be gone through, so it does take time. There has to be a transition into the new format. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he accept the need for urgency in closing these facilities down, given that studies have shown that one-in-three children placed in residential care by the State ended up in prison later in life? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, there's a number of reasons why children may end up in prison later on in life, and it's often the home environment that they came from; it's not just what happens to them when they are in the care of the State. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is his response to the finding of the Waitangi Tribunal that the Crown removal of mokopuna Māori into State care is a profound and ongoing breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, what I think is that the Māori Party's decision to disestablish one bureaucracy and build another bureaucracy isn't going to actually address the myriad of issues that need to be addressed. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Then you'll love this question: will he support the establishment of an independent mokopuna Māori authority responsible for ensuring our mokopuna are cared for and remain in the whānau, hapū, and iwi; if not, why not? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: For the very reason I just said: that replacing one bureaucracy with another bureaucracy that will end up telling Ngā Puhi, Muriwhenua, and Ngāti Kahungunu what to do with their tamariki is the wrong move. So replacing one bureaucracy with another is a backward step. SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the continued committee stage of the Spatial Planning Bill; the second readings of the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill, the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3), the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill, and the Sale and Supply of the Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill. A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to. Ayes 74 New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere. Noes 44 New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10. Motion agreed to. The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 73, Noes 44.