Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What reports has she seen on the cost of living?

I have seen many reports that show New Zealanders have experienced major cost of living pressures in recent years. Since 2017, there has been cumulative inflation of 24.6 percent, with annual inflation peaking at 7.3 percent—the highest rate of inflation in more than 30 years. The latest data shows inflation remains high, at 5.6 percent, and so it is clear that the Government has plenty of work to do. We know Kiwis are doing it tough after six years of economic mismanagement, which is why we are moving quickly to rebuild the economy for all New Zealanders.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Come on, Mr Speaker. You said that this wasn’t going to be allowed.

SPEAKER: That’s quite true, but in this case the question stopped pretty abruptly when a look went in a certain direction, and that will continue.

David MacLeod: What specific cost of living pressures have New Zealanders faced?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Food and rent are big pressures Kiwis face, and the cost of both has soared in recent years. Since 2017, food prices have increased by 29.3 percent above the overall rate of inflation. Over the same period, average rents have increased by $180 per week—a 45 percent increase. It is no surprise that Kiwis feel like they’re falling behind when the cost of basics like food and rent have increased so much. That’s why this Government is taking action to rebuild the economy so hard-working Kiwis can get ahead.

David MacLeod: How has the rise in the cost of living impacted interest rates?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In response to rampant inflation, the official cash rate has risen to 5.5 percent, much higher than the 1.75 percent inherited by the last Government in 2017. The effect of that significant tightening in monetary policy is a significant lift in mortgage interest rates, putting more pressure on Kiwis who are already struggling to pay the bills. It is a good reminder that there is no free lunch from rampant Government spending; it just leads to higher taxes, more debt, and, as so many Kiwis are facing right now, higher interest rates.

David MacLeod: What plans does the Government have to support Kiwis struggling with the cost of living?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Beating inflation is this Government’s top priority, which is why we are moving quickly to bring inflation down. We’re restoring the Reserve Bank’s single focus on inflation. We’re reducing costs on businesses by cancelling the ute tax. We’re clearing away broken regulations, like the previous Government’s Resource Management Act replacement. And next year, we will be delivering tax relief for hard-working Kiwis struggling with the cost of living, so they can keep more of what they earn.

Hon Grant Robertson: Is the latest OECD economic outlook on New Zealand correct when they said that we should not have tax cuts if we want to counter inflation and improve the cost of living?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, because New Zealanders have been overtaxed by a Government that oversaw rampant spending increases, and their bank accounts have been eroded not only by inflation but also by higher average tax rates, and they have elected a Government that’s going to let them keep more of what they earn.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has she read IRD and Treasury’s research which shows that the wealthiest families in this country pay less than half the effective tax rate of teachers, nurses, emergency and essential workers, and the average New Zealander?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I disagree with the member’s interpretation of research issued by the IRD.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why is her Government repealing, under urgency, public reporting on the fairness of our tax system, and pushing ahead with trickle-down tax cuts that disproportionately increase the burden on lower-income New Zealanders? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment. There will eventually be a consequence for speaking while someone is asking a question. Just as people don’t like answers at times, some people don’t like the questions. Do not speak while someone’s asking a question.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The newly elected Government is not of the view that reporting on things, and publishing glossy documents, actually meaningfully changes people’s lives for the better, as the past Government conclusively proved over six years of bureaucracy, report writing, and printing.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, I do, especially this Government’s action to launch an independent review into Kāinga Ora and the deeply concerning financial state it was left in by the previous Government. I also stand by this Government’s action to end the dysfunctional Let’s Get Wellington Moving programme, and to focus on delivering infrastructure that Wellington actually needs. And I stand by our action to end the ute tax. Could I just make another statement by wishing the member a very merry Christmas and the very best of luck in the new year in whatever role Kieran McAnulty gives him.

SPEAKER: It’s not particularly helpful for order.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Merry Christmas to him too. Does he agree with Christopher Luxon, “In the real world, outside of Wellington, outside of the bubble of MPs, people who want to learn te reo or want to learn any other education actually pay for it themselves.”; if so, does he believe that standard applies to him too?

CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We encourage employers to upskill their employees if they need te reo for the purposes of their job. We support that. What we don’t support is actually bonuses on top of base remuneration.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If in the real world people pay for their own te reo Māori lessons, why did the taxpayer pay for his, and will he pay that money back?

CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think all the 123 MPs in this Chamber, if they want to learn te reo, that’s actually a good thing because they’re actually there to represent all New Zealanders. I would suspect that you may have done the same as Prime Minister and/or Leader of the Opposition.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So why did he say “In the real world outside of Wellington and outside the bubble of MPs, people who want to learn te reo actually pay for it themselves.”?

CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because they do, and many private companies; people who actually want to learn te reo, actually do it. But if it’s a part of your job and it actually helps you do your job to represent all New Zealanders better and you want to learn te reo, I would encourage all 123 members in this Chamber to do likewise.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon with regard to the Clean Car Discount, “I think if I can pay, I should pay.”, and, if so, when will he pay?

CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’ve talked about this before—those are the affairs of my wife, if that’s what you’re trying to get to there.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which of the following statements, therefore, does he agree with: Christopher Luxon on 6 April: “I’ve got one Tesla, a little Tesla Model 3, yep, and I think I’ve got to say they’re fantastic cars.”, Christopher Luxon on 13 May, “I have an electric car—a Tesla, I love it.”, or Christopher Luxon on 14 June and again now: “I don’t have a Tesla, my wife has one”?

Point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is very well aware that the Prime Minister is not responsible for statements made by Mr Luxon, which may or may not be accurate, before he became Prime Minister.

SPEAKER: That is quite right. I was being somewhat lenient given the nature of the opening answer to the question, but I think it should be brought right back to the responsibilities of the Prime Minister directly.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he pay back the more than $8,000 he’s received from the Clean Car Discount his Government has now repealed?

CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I’ve previously explained, the car is owned by my wife. Those are her financial affairs. I wouldn’t bring the affairs of your family member into public discourse, because she’s not the public figure.

SPEAKER: I think that’s actually a very fair point that should be taken on board.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: We’ve got a point of order here from the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It’s a supplementary question. Much more important.

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry. Point of order, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: The now-Prime Minister claimed that he owned the car himself.

SPEAKER: Well, the realities of that are not immediately evident to me, because I don’t have those papers in front of me. All I’m saying is that it has been a fairly longstanding convention in this House not to bring family members into the debate.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. If a Minister mentions their family in the answer to a question in order to avoid answering the question, it is legitimate to therefore ask them follow-up statements about their own statements.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order, this is wholly absurd. Firstly, the line of questioning is out of order, because it relates to matters that are not within the Prime Minister’s responsibility. Secondly, notwithstanding that clear statement of the obvious, the Prime Minister has deigned to provide a commentary in which he has said that the matter that the member is referring to relates to a family member, and I would encourage members opposite to uphold the longstanding convention that you, Mr Speaker, have referred to.

SPEAKER: That’s a relevant point, but all Government policy is the responsibility of the Prime Minister, and that’s why the question is being asked.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. I want to be very clear, based on the accusation from Christopher Bishop—I did not bring Christopher Luxon’s wife into the debate.

SPEAKER: I think we got that. Do you have a supplementary?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Yes, I do.

SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Winston Peters goes first, sorry.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister as to whether it’s his position on taxation that you pay the taxation at the time it applies, and if the taxation system changes, then your taxation obligations change as well, and not some woke lefty shill view that you will apply the tax retrospectively, which is the basis of the question?

SPEAKER: Much as the right honourable member might like to think that the Prime Minister is responsible for anything that is considered to be a defence against the descriptor that you gave, that’s not a reasonable question. So we’ll progress with the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon with regard to prime ministerial travel on Defence Force planes: “There’s other options. There’s charter options, for example. There’s commercial arrangements”, or does he agree with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon that travelling on a Defence Force plane was a convenient option?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I’ve said today, we’ve actually asked Defence to actually look at a long-term viable option for New Zealand to use, and that could be commercial aircraft, it could be charter aircraft, it could be leased aircraft or owned aircraft. That’s in the future interest of all future and potential Governments to do so. I just say to the member, I think the line of questioning, given the economic crisis that’s going on in this country, says he’s not focused on the real issues.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: In that case, Mr Speaker, supplementary?

SPEAKER: Yep.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, does he therefore agree with Christopher Luxon, “It would be inappropriate for us to actually commit and spend new money on planes in a recession, and therefore my personal view is that we travel commercial.”; if so, why has he now asked the Defence Force to bring forward plans for the replacement of those planes?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What we’ve asked the Defence Force to do is give us a plan, or a series of options in a package that could comprise of commercial, it could comprise of charter, it could comprise of leased, or it may even comprise of owned. Actually, we need a long-term solution, because on this side of Government we want to get out in the world. We want to double the amount of exports that this country generates, and part of that is having the tools to do that.

Chris Bishop: What reflections does he have on the Government’s priorities in light of the questions from the Opposition so far in this term of Parliament?

SPEAKER: That’s not a question. You know that’s not right. So we’ll move now to question No. 3 in the name of Mark Cameron.

Question No. 3—Regulation

3. to the Minister for Regulation: What problems, if any, does he hope to solve in his portfolio?

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the member for the question. At its heart, it is New Zealand’s long-term disease of low productivity growth that deprives New Zealanders of not only prosperity but so many of the things that they would like to have. An element of that productivity problem is caused by excessive red tape and regulation, which adds costs to doing everything from building a home to running an early childhood education centre. Part of that problem is the fact that it’s very difficult for people to identify those who put the red tape and costs on to them. A Minister for Regulation will be changing the way that Government makes rules and allowing those who are the victims of red tape and regulation to see who is responsible and see a pathway out of the thicket that has stopped them growing their productivity.

SPEAKER: That was a very long answer that had the indulgence that comes at the end of the year.

Mark Cameron: Why is a Ministry for Regulation needed to reduce regulation?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: There’s 34 public service departments. There’s an estimated—and this is as close as Treasury can estimate—180 to 200 regulatory management systems, and 10,000 to 14,000 public servants engaged in regulatory activity. Now, I would have thought having one small department to give New Zealanders a chance of beating that back is a pretty good deal.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Given that ensuring good legislative and regulatory design is already the role of Government departments, the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, Treasury, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, the Regulations Review Committee, subject matter select committees, the Attorney-General, and this House, isn’t it the case that a new department is simply duplicate, excessive red tape and regulation, and a waste of taxpayer’s money that does not even meet his own standards of regulatory good management?

SPEAKER: That was a question that matched the previous answer.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, first of all, I’d like to congratulate the member on becoming the spokesperson for regulation within the Labour Party. Now, clearly, the Labour Party believes that some, as he would say, duplication is necessary when he’s got all the other spokespeople on the Opposition benches. This Government happens to believe that it is necessary to have somebody focused on regulation, just as the Labour Party appears to think it’s worth having him focused on it.

Mark Cameron: For clarity, does this mean he doesn’t think we’ve been regulating to a high standard already?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: That is exactly the point, and you hear it up and down the country, almost wherever you go. It’s people who complain it takes longer to get permission to build a home than it does to actually build it. It’s people who complain that it is almost impossible to get credit without jumping through the most inordinate number of hoops. It’s people who just wanted to open kids’ eyes to the world, and yet find themselves—for example, at an early childhood education centre—opening up, alleging that they have 303 regulations to follow before they can welcome a kid through the door. Over successive Governments we have failed to regulate responsibly. We now have a Government that is going to take it seriously, with—I understand for the first time—a Minister in Cabinet responsible for regulation.

Mark Cameron: What are the areas he wants to focus on?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: While the Government has not made such decisions, the coalition documents that formed the Government contemplate regulatory reviews going through sectors of what I might call “victims of red tape and regulation”, sector by sector. It contemplates early childhood education, which I’ve already mentioned as being particularly over-regulated. It mentions the financial sector, which I’ve already mentioned. It also mentions health workforce, where there appears to be real difficulties getting people who are eminently qualified to perform a duty in New Zealand to be allowed to do so here—and we find them performing that duty for citizens of another country shortly after being rejected here. But I’m sure the member, as the chair of the Primary Production Committee, will be pleased to know the documents also consider a regulatory review of the agricultural sector. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Is she committed to implementing all of the economic and fiscal commitments in the coalition agreements between National, ACT, and New Zealand First?

Yes, subject to final consideration and decision making by Cabinet.

Hon Grant Robertson: Will the mini-Budget tomorrow give specific details as to how the tax cuts programme of the Government outlined in those coalition agreements will be self-funded?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The member, along with others, will have to await the announcement of the mini-Budget tomorrow to get an answer to his question.

Hon Grant Robertson: Is that right? Does she agree with Nicola Willis, who said in September that the mini-Budget would set out the cuts and new taxes needed to pay for the tax cuts promises in the coalition agreements?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I can confirm for the member that the mini-Budget we will announce tomorrow will set out the first steps of the urgent economic repair job that our coalition Government has under way to restore New Zealand’s economy after a period of excessive economic and fiscal vandalism.

Hon Grant Robertson: What is the total cost to the Government of the commitments that have been made in the coalition agreements?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The individual costings of policies will be dependent on the consideration of Cabinet, the implementation details of those policies, and their phasing.

Hon Grant Robertson: Thank you. So is it correct, then, that the Minister doesn’t know how much the commitments in the coalition agreements cost, doesn’t know how she’s going to pay for her tax cuts; and is her mini-Budget, which the Prime Minister now described as a “mini-mini-mini-Budget”, now actually a “nano-Budget”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, none of those things are true. I know many, many things and I would suggest, based on my reading of the state of the Government books, I know a lot more about how to be a custodian of public money than the former Minister did.

Question No. 5—Housing

5. to the Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has he made regarding Kāinga Ora?

Yesterday, I announced that the Government has launched a review into Kāinga Ora, fulfilling our first 100 days’ commitment to commission an independent review into the State housing provider’s financial situation, procurement, and asset management. We’ve long been concerned about the performance of Kāinga Ora; whether they’re operating efficiently and effectively. Their performance directly impacts the New Zealanders who rely on them for housing but also the Government books. The independent review will identify ways to improve their performance and value for money, and manage the impact of Kāinga Ora on debt in the Government books.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What concerns does he have on Kāinga Ora’s financial performance?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Many. Treasury and the Ministry for Housing and Urban Development have reported that Kāinga Ora’s level of debt has grown from $2.7 billion in 2018 to $12.3 billion in June of this year. Advice publicly released already suggests that if Kāinga Ora continues on its current trajectory, the debt would reach nearly $29 billion by 2033. These increases are concerning, and I’m also worried about the operating deficit, which is $520 million in 2022-23 and is forecast to continue to increase. It’s important to note the deficit has a direct impact on the operating balance before gains and losses (OBEGAL) and continues to put pressure on the return to OBEGAL surplus.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What reviewers have been chosen to undertake this review, and why?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We have put together a panel of three expert reviewers with a deep understanding of the social housing and the wider housing sector. Former Prime Minister the Rt Hon Sir Bill English will lead the review team; joining him are Simon Allen and Ceinwen McNeil. These three experts will provide a targeted and focused review to Ministers to report back in March next year.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister urgently put out a press statement explaining what Kāinga Ora means or papa kāinga means because there are journalists out there asking members of Parliament what it means, and this is a desperate situation that we’ve reached at this point in time?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I am not a member of Parliament or a Minister who is known to not want to put out press releases. I enjoy putting out press releases and I intend to put out many more about the woeful state the Government—

SPEAKER: No, that’s good—that’s enough. Thank you, that’s enough. Dana Kirkpatrick.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What are the next steps for this review and when does he expect it to be completed?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: This is a significant body of work and a priority for our new Government. The Kāinga Ora board is being consulted on the terms of reference right now, and they will be released later this week. We will receive the first report back in March 2024. We are all looking forward to receiving the findings.

Tamatha Paul: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Um—

Tamatha Paul: Tamatha Paul. Wellington Central.

SPEAKER: Sorry, just diving for my sheet. Let me get your name—my apologies for that. Hana Maipi-Clarke—

Tamatha Paul: Tamatha Paul, not Hana-Rawhiti, but thank you for the compliment.

SPEAKER: Tamatha Paul. Look, sorry members, can I just apologise to the member for that. There are quite a few new names to know and quite a few new faces and I’m doing my very best.

Tamatha Paul: Will he commit to ensuring no net loss of State housing in his term?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Our intention as a Government is to grow the supply of social housing because the wait-list for social housing quintupled under the last Government, and there are thousands of New Zealanders in need of greater support.

Tamatha Paul: My question was actually about State housing, not social housing, which are two different things. Will he ensure—

SPEAKER: Don’t do that. Just ask a question.

Tamatha Paul: Will he ensure that projects under way including Arlington, which intends to deliver 300 public houses in Wellington Central, will be completed and not scaled down?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, our intention while the review is under way is that the current work programme of Kāinga Ora continues. I’m happy to have a conversation with the member about specific Wellington projects because, again, there is a significant need in the Wellington region for social housing because of the woeful state the last Government left social housing in Wellington.

Question No. 6—Local Government

6. to the Minister of Local Government: Does he stand by the Government’s commitment to repeal the Affordable Water Reforms and “restore council ownership and control”; if so, will he guarantee balance sheet separation will be retained?

Thank you for the question. Yes, the Government is committed to repealing the previous Government’s reforms, and I’d like to be clear that the key principles of our reforms will be to (1) introduce economic and quality regulation of water (2) fit for purpose service delivery models and financing tools (3) setting rules for water services and infrastructure investment, and (4) ensuring water services are financially sustainable, which may include balance sheet separation.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Is the Minister aware of advice from the Department of Internal Affairs and public comments from credit rating agencies that say balance sheet separation will not be recognised if these reforms are repealed?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: There’s been a range of advice that I have received as I have been approaching repealing the prior Government’s reforms, including the fact that the last Government spent over $1.2 billion but didn’t actually achieve anything.

SPEAKER: That step’s a bit wide, so just calm that down.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Can the Minister then guarantee that his Government’s replacement of the affordable water reforms will save ratepayers more than they were lined up to under the reforms?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Our reforms will ensure that local government has the tools that they need to be able to deliver long-term funding and financing of water infrastructure in New Zealand.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why won’t the Minister guarantee that ratepayers will save more money by repealing the affordable water reforms rather than sticking with them?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, we are focused on ensuring that councils have the long-term funding and financing tools that they need to be able to deliver water infrastructure in New Zealand. The last Government spent six years and failed to actually get anything achieved in water reform in New Zealand.

Sam Uffindell: What advice has he received on how much money has been spent on three waters reforms to date?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I’ve received advice that the total expenditure by the prior Government to 6 December was $1,202,062,000—all talk, very little action.

Question No. 7—Transport

7. to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has the Government made on Let’s Get Wellington Moving?

On Sunday, the Government, Wellington City Council, and the Greater Wellington Regional Council announced that we would be ending Let’s Get Wellington Moving, a programme which has failed to deliver the infrastructure that Wellingtonians need. Withdrawing was a key priority in the coalition Government’s hundred-day plan in the National-led coalition agreement, and I’m pleased to say that we’re delivering on this commitment.

Tim Costley: Why have these changes been made?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, it’s a very good question. Let’s Get Wellington Moving had failed to deliver the infrastructure that Wellingtonians needed. Over $160 million had been spent on the programme, of which $82.3 million had been spent on consultants, while just a single set of traffic lights on State Highway 1 has been delivered. This Government is focused on delivery, unlike the former, focused on consultancy.

Tim Costley: What are the next steps for transport infrastructure in Wellington?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Very good question again. Our coalition Government is committed to delivering key roads of national significance in Wellington, which also support local government to improve the city’s bus corridors. We will deliver a second Mount Victoria tunnel and upgrades to the Basin Reserve as part of our roads of national significance programme.

Question No. 8—Tertiary Education and Skills

8. to the Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills: What specific actions, if any, has she taken with respect to the Government’s plan to disestablish Te Pūkenga - New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology?

I thank the member for her question. I’ve sought advice on the options open to me, and following that, I’ve taken the following actions. I’ve met with the chief executive and the chair of Te Pūkenga. I have met with members of the Te Pūkenga board, including the new chair. I have delivered a new letter of expectation to Te Pūkenga. I have met with the Tertiary Education Commission and the Ministry of Education and begun work with officials on the development of a work programme to disestablish Te Pūkenga.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: What is the estimated cost of the plan?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The estimated cost of the plan is being worked through by the officials and by Te Pūkenga, but I can assure the member that it will be considerably less than the $200 million that the previous Government wasted on the establishment.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Given her statement to Newshub that their funding will increase, has she requested funding from the Minister of Finance for the Government’s plan to disestablish Te Pūkenga?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Unfortunately, the member failed to take into account the full answer to that, and that is the unified funding scheme that was brought in by the previous Government top-sliced around 20 percent of the funding off the individual institutions and it was used in a contestable way—in a centralised, contestable way. So the additional funding I was referring to was reinstating that full amount of funding back to the institutions.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: If the funding is therefore coming from existing baselines, then what part of tertiary education funding will she cut in order to fund the estimated $185 million of deficits that our polytechnics are facing in the next financial year?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: An excellent question from the member. I will cut the very expensive, bloated head office of Te Pūkenga.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister explain which Government was in charge when the deficits were created?

SPEAKER: No. No, we’re not having that one—nice try.

Question No. 9—Transport

9. to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by the principle in his Government’s coalition agreements that “decisions will be based on data and evidence”?

Yes. The Government’s coalition agreements set out our priorities for this term of Government, and we are committed to delivering these priorities.

Hon James Shaw: What data and evidence did he receive from officials on the impact of repealing the Clean Car Discount on the second and third emissions budgets prior to the Cabinet decision to do so?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I received a draft regulatory impact statement, which I have instructed officials to proactively release.

Hon James Shaw: What data and evidence on emissions, if any, did he provide to Cabinet on the decision to repeal the Clean Car Discount?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I advised Cabinet that the emissions budget would be met whilst repealing this scheme.

Hon James Shaw: What data and evidence, if any, did he provide to the Minister of Climate Change on the emissions impact on the second and third emissions budgets of repealing the Clean Car Discount?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The same evidence and data I provided to Cabinet.

Hon James Shaw: Did he inform the Minister of Climate Change of any risks of failing to meet the second emissions budget as a result of repealing the Clean Car Discount?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I advised the Minister of Climate Change of the same advice that I received from the Ministry of Transport in regards to those budgets.

Hon James Shaw: Did he invite the Minister of Climate Change to provide options on proportionate action to address any emissions reduction shortfall for transport in the second emissions budget?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as the member will know as a former Minister of Climate Change, there is work to be done around what will be included in the next two emissions budgets, and that work and advice will be received as part of the process.

Hon James Shaw: Is he aware that the second emissions budget has already been set by Parliament?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes, and the actual activities within, which will meet that budget, are still to be worked—but, as I said in the House last week, the emissions trading scheme is the tool that this Government is going to heavily rely on to meet our emissions reduction priorities.

Hon James Shaw: So was there any proportionate action decided by Cabinet when Cabinet decided to repeal the Clean Car Discount?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Cabinet agreed to repeal the Clean Car Discount as part of the coalition agreement.

Hon David Seymour: Did the advice provided consider the possibility that any increase in emissions from repealing the Clean Car Discount would increase demand for carbon credits, therefore increase the price of carbon credits and reduce the quantity of carbon credits demanded elsewhere in the economy, thereby reducing emissions; and wouldn’t he expect a former Minister of Climate Change to understand something that simple?

SPEAKER: You can comment on the first part of that question.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the reality is that the emissions are capped under the emissions trading scheme, and that member, the former Minister of Climate Change, should understand that.

Question No. 10—Education

10. to the Minister of Education: What progress is the Government making on its 100-day plan in education?

Today, the Government has announced a suite of changes to ensure we are focused on teaching the basics brilliantly. All primary and intermediate students will be taught an average of an hour a day in each: reading, writing, and mathematics. A ministerial advisory group has been appointed to urgently review the curriculum and the common practice model, and the distraction of cellphones will be removed from our classrooms. These changes in the 100-day plan are just the first steps in the Government’s plan to lift student achievement, because it is our aspiration to get 80 percent of students to curriculum by the time they leave intermediate, so that they can go on to access the curriculum at high school and gain a qualification so that they can go on to live the life they deserve.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Who is the ministerial advisory group made up of?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: This group will be made up of a combination of subject matter experts and curriculum experts, outstanding principals, and leading academics from around New Zealand. The group is going to be chaired by Dr Michael Johnston, a senior fellow at the New Zealand Initiative. To his role as chair, Dr Johnston will bring the extensive knowledge of the science of learning that is required to improve educational achievement in New Zealand. Members include outstanding principals like Iain Taylor of Manurewa Intermediate, distinguished subject matter experts like Dr Elizabeth Rata, Professor Gaven Martin, Sir James Chapman, and Dr Melissa Derby of Ngāti Ranginui, all of whom bring the expertise required to ensure our curriculum is world leading and doesn’t leave anything to chance.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What has the Minister tasked the group with doing?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: This group will be tasked with reviewing the curriculum and the common practice model. The scope of the review will include providing me with advice and feedback on the existing draft, as well as additional content to ensure our curriculum is underpinned by the science of learning. I want to ensure that we have clear annualised progression outcomes to better support teachers to design their programmes of learning, to better support students to develop mastery of the basic skills, and to better support our education system to do what it says on the tin: give every child the opportunity to be numerate, to be literate, to gain meaningful secondary qualifications, and to live the life they choose and deserve.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: How is the Government going to get 80 percent of students to curriculum?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Recent national monitoring data shows that only around 40 percent of children are currently at curriculum level for mathematics in year 8, and student achievement in co-requisite assessments at high school revealed that only 56 percent passed the numeracy assessment. The recent changes the Government has made will see our children return to the classroom in 2024 undistracted by cellphones, focused on the core skills of reading, writing, and maths for an hour each a day, and we are working at pace to ensure our curriculum and common practice model documents are world leading and backed by the evidence of the science of learning, to support our great teachers. Under this Government, the perpetual decline of student achievement will stop. We want to see children back at curriculum and we want to see New Zealand back in the top ten of OECD countries for academic achievement. This Government is aspirational for our kids and what we have achieved in the last three weeks is just the start. Can I just finish by saying, Mr Speaker, if you will indulge me, happy sweet 16 to my daughter Holly.

Well, that last remark probably saved you because that question rivalled David Seymour for length, but we’ll just try and keep them a little more concise in the future.

Question No. 11—Environment

11. to the Minister for the Environment: Does she agree with the objectives of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020; and if not, why not?

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the member for her question. This coalition Government is committed—as am I, as Minister for the Environment—to improving freshwater quality for the benefit of all New Zealanders by ensuring a sustainable and balanced approach that works towards improving the environmental outcomes for our waterways.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That really did not address the question; it was about the principles and, whilst it was a policy statement, it really didn’t address the question on notice at all.

OK, let’s have another crack at it.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We consider that to have an enduring and sustainable solution there needs to be a balanced approach which recognises the interests of all water users.

If the Minister has a quick look at the question, it’s asking does she agree with the objectives of the national policy statement for fresh water. The answer she’s given is an outcome, but perhaps address that specifically, if that’s all right.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. No, we do not agree with the hierarchy of objectives, and that is why we have undertaken to replace the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management to ensure more balanced, enduring, and sustainable outcomes.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Can the Minister explain, then, exactly what parts of the objective in 2.1 she disagrees with, and I will read that out, because “The objective of this National Policy Statement is to ensure that the natural and physical resources are managed in a way that prioritises: … first, the health and well-being of water bodies and freshwater ecosystems; … second, the health needs of people (such as drinking water); … third, the ability of people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being now and in the future.”?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, I think I have answered it, but I’ll answer it again, and that is: the coalition Government is committed to improving freshwater quality for the benefit of all New Zealanders by ensuring a sustainable and balanced approach that works towards improving the environmental outcomes for all our waterways.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Does the Minister agree with the objective AA1 in the 2014—amended in 2017—National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management that was “To consider and recognise Te Mana o te Wai in the management of fresh water”?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: One of the key objectives in our replacement of the NPS for Freshwater Management will be to ensure that a balanced approach is taken in representing the interests of all water users.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. That was, although not on notice, a very clear question about whether the Minister agrees with Te Mana o te Wai, and it didn’t come close to addressing it.

SPEAKER: Yes, except that she has started off, after a bit of time, saying, “No”, and therefore any explanation around that becomes a reasonable answer. Question No. 12—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry, Dr Rachel—the Hon Rachel Brooking.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Yes, not a doctor. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister explain the role of district councils in managing environmental limits referred to in the Speech from the Throne, which said “The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 will be replaced to ensure a local approach, allowing district councils more flexibility in managing environmental limits.”?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Sorry, I didn’t catch all of that question, but I can assure the member—

SPEAKER: Let’s not have any issue. Ask it again.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Thank you. Can the Minister explain the role of district councils in managing environmental limits referred to in the Speech from the Throne, which said, “The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 will be replaced to ensure a local approach, allowing district councils more flexibility in managing environmental limits.”?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you to the member for repeating that. In the process of developing the replacement national policy statement on fresh water, we will be consulting widely with all stakeholders, including local authorities, and I can assure the member that we are very invested in ensuring that local communities get the opportunity to customise and to have nuanced processes in place that ensure that at a community level they can be making decisions that are appropriate for that community.

Question No. 12—Prime Minister

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

Yes, and particularly our desire to improve outcomes for Māori and non-Māori.

Rawiri Waititi: How can he stand by the policy to legislate English as an official language when there has been no public movement for the change, whereas when te reo Māori was made an official language in 1987 it was the result of 20 years of campaigning and a petition signed by over 30,000 people?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It’s just common sense. We want English, te reo, and sign language to be official languages of New Zealand.

Rawiri Waititi: Is he not aware that English is an official language by de facto in Aotearoa or is this policy just right fragility?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: So let’s just make it official.

Rawiri Waititi: Why is he attacking the use of te reo Māori in the Public Service when research shows that public attitudes in support of te reo Māori are at an all-time high?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’re not attacking te reo. We think te reo is a very valuable language that we’d encourage more people to learn.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: As a basic legal precept, can I ask the Prime Minister how can something be de facto legal?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, our point is that English should be official, te reo should be official, and New Zealand Sign Language should be official languages of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Rawiri Waititi: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What is his response to those calling on him to repay the taxpayer for the funding he used for his own te reo Māori lessons, and does he think good spending of taxpayer money will be to encourage more MPs and public servants to learn te reo Māori?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, yes, I do, and that’s why I said earlier that 123 MPs here in this House learning te reo would be a good thing, given they represent all New Zealanders.

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order. Mr Speaker, the questions have flown back and forth, but the Prime Minister is not responsible for matters that relate to his time as Leader of the Opposition. So I’ll just make the point that on a couple of occasions over the last couple of question times, we have strayed well away from prime ministerial or ministerial responsibility.

SPEAKER: Yes, I know. Often, answers do the same thing. So we’ll just take it as it flows. The Prime Minister’s actually quite good at answering questions, I think, and—[Interruption] Sorry, that was a very un-Speaker-like statement; my apologies to the House for that. I think there is someone going to stand up now and say something.

Hon Chris Bishop: Sorry, I was waiting for Mr Speaker to conclude oral questions.

SPEAKER: Oh, well, you’re quite right—oral questions are concluded.

Hon Chris Bishop: Thank you, Mr Speaker.