Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement on the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, “My dream is to devolve decision making and funding and give to mana motuhake, as close to the home and hapū as possible”; if so, what structure and funding models will he use to achieve it?

Yes, I stand by my statement. The dream is to lift mostly every health metric for Māori. I’m still working with my officials on how this will look and am excited to work collaboratively with our coalition partners to ensure that we achieve better health outcomes for all New Zealanders. That is because there is one thing we can all agree on: New Zealanders are suffering from six years of broken promises and misguidance from the previous Labour Government. The latest clinical performance metrics, released yesterday, show that Māori and all New Zealanders are suffering, with longer wait times in the emergency department, for their specialist assessment, amongst many other issues. We believe the devolution of decision making and funding to those on the front lines will help drive better health outcomes and that the hapū probably know what’s best for their communities.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What assurances can he give, if any, that the Māori health commissioning budget for Te Aka Whai Ora will stay ring-fenced for Māori health providers at the same level of funding currently in place?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The leader has already given indications that funding that is appropriated for Māori health will remain with Māori health.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How will he ensure that the recommendations of the Wai 2575 Māori health claim are implemented in the new Māori health structure and investment model?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We seek to improve Māori health outcomes—which is also the endeavour of the Wai claim—and we have every intention of doing that.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What will now be the monitoring mechanism to ensure accountability for Māori health outcomes as achieved by Te Whatu Ora?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We could contend whether that was truly achieved by Te Aka Whai Ora, but we are working through structural mechanisms to make sure that there is monitoring in place for Māori health outcomes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What specific decisions has the Government made on baseline funding, delegations, and the role of iwi Māori partnership boards under the new system?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We’re working through appropriate structures and delegations for how we can improve Māori health outcomes.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: What does the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update say about the state of the New Zealand economy, and what steps is the Government taking to respond?

Our Government has inherited challenging economic and fiscal conditions. Inflation and interest rates remain high, the economy is contracting, and unemployment is beginning to rise. The forecast, or so-called surplus, in 2026-27 has been eroded to a wafer-thin $140 million. Treasury has identified $7.2 billion of fiscal cliffs, although we expect that figure to grow in the coming weeks and months. In response to the cost of living crisis, Kiwis have tightened their belts. Today, the Government tightens ours. My message to Kiwis is that after six years of economic mismanagement, our Government is presenting a new chapter.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, and on a number of occasions last week, you warned Ministers about using Government questions to make commentary or to attack the Opposition. Now, particularly in light of the Opposition being unable to debate this today because the Government declined leave, I think we should be particularly vigilant about that with this question.

SPEAKER: Question time is a time for the Government to be accountable for itself, and answers should not refer to what are perceived political failings of any other parties in the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, this is meant to be a debating chamber, where the issues of the day should be discussed and argued, not some antiseptic Chrysler ad. It is about real issues—in this case, who’s responsible for them—and to think that an Opposition, who arrived there only a few weeks ago and who were in control, don’t want to have their record examined belies democracy and question time itself.

Hon Grant Robertson: We can’t have a debate—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, you can have a debate on those matters, and we knew you were never going to get an urgent debate—we knew you’d try—because inexperience is what you were famous for. But the fact is that this matter will be discussed next year as well.

SPEAKER: So I am bound by Speakers’ ruling 181/3. I am simply saying that there are lots of ways you can say things without it being an open attack.

Nancy Lu: What economic challenges are outlined in the half-year update?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As high interest rates bite, the economy is set to stall and unemployment is set to rise. Inflation is expected to finally come back into the target range in the second half of next year but will remain a challenge in coming months. That’s why our Government is moving quickly to get inflation back under control, by getting Government spending under control with a programme of fiscal sustainability and unshackling businesses from the red tape that has been slowing them down. There is much more to do on rebuilding New Zealand’s economic engine, but today’s announcements are a good start.

Nancy Lu: What fiscal challenges are presented in the half-year update?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Government spending this year is around $15 billion higher than forecast just two years ago. That’s the product of loose fiscal policy, with spending vastly outstripping any growth in revenue. The results of this, if left unchecked, are more debt, more inflation, and a delayed return to surplus. Looking forward to next year, the Government faces at least $7.2 billion of fiscal cliffs, with funding for a number of initiatives set to expire. That is why we are kicking off a fiscal sustainability programme to ensure New Zealanders can have confidence that their money is being spent responsibly and so that we can deliver effective and efficient services for them to rely on.

Nancy Lu: What savings have been finalised by the Government to date?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Since being sworn in just a couple of weeks ago, the Government has finalised $7.5 billion worth of savings and revenue initiatives, which were announced earlier today. Those savings reflect a series of decisions made by Cabinet to stop work on broken programmes like light rail and Lake Onslow but also to lock in the reprioritisations required to deliver tax relief next year. After years of watching Government grow and grow and grow, with little positive impact for real people, our Government is reining in wasteful spending so New Zealanders can keep more of what they earn.

Nancy Lu: What future steps is the Government taking to restore fiscal discipline?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Fiscal sustainability isn’t a one-off exercise; it’s about delivering a long-term culture of discipline and responsibility. That’s why we are setting out more savings to be delivered heading into the Budget next year, with an initial baseline exercise delivering an annual savings of $1.5 billion and further work on new revenue measures and other efficiencies from Government programmes. In 2017, the outgoing Government inherited much better conditions than we are facing. Today, we face high inflation, high interest rates, large deficits, a recessionary economy, and rising unemployment. This is the result of poor economic management, and it’s why we are so committed to getting the books back on track.

Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that in the half-year economic update, unemployment is projected to peak at 5.2 percent—lower than had been projected at the pre-election fiscal update?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The member is correct. However, unemployment is rising from where it is today, according to these forecasts, and I am conscious—and I hope the member is conscious—that that percentage represents real people who, due to the state of our economy, are set to not have jobs. That is of concern to me.

Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that the Treasury, on page 6 of the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, have indicated that issues such as tax revenue declining represents a risk to whether or not the Government’s decisions will be fiscally neutral, and, in fact, this means New Zealanders may see a worse economic outlook as a result of her tax cuts?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The member can be assured that Treasury knows the greatest risk to the Government’s book is a big-spending, ineffective Government, and that chapter has closed. That is why the Treasury, on page 6, state that it is anticipated that under this new coalition Government, “once combined with the other signalled commitments in the Mini Budget”—i.e., our tax plans—“[that are] expected to be agreed in the future, the overall impact would be broadly neutral over the forecast period.”

Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that the paragraph after the one she just read out said that “Once the Mini Budget decisions and other commitments are reflected into the forecasts, there will be changes in the composition of some key indicators … there is a risk that once decisions are fully reflected into the economic and fiscal forecasts, the overall fiscal impacts may not be neutral”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That is why we are working to ensure that our tax package is neutral, and I do have to say that being lectured by someone who broke every spending limit they ever set themselves—I can’t really take it that seriously. Given the state that member left the Government books in, he should stop lecturing about fiscal responsibility. Not only will we spend better but New Zealanders will have more money in their bank accounts, and we’ll be proud to deliver.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister of Finance as to whether she’s concerned about the potential serious underlying unemployment as a result of the colossal figure of 128,000 immigrants being brought into this country at the end of October this year by the Labour Government?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I have two concerns. The first concern is that after a period of extremely restrictive immigration settings, the Government then moved so swiftly to reopen immigration settings that it has failed to put in place adequate controls, and we’ve seen that with the evidence of migrant exploitation and we are seeing that we are currently experiencing levels of immigration that are unsustainable. That is why the Minister of Immigration is looking very carefully at the ill-disciplined systems that were left to her by the outgoing Minister. I also have another concern—if you’ll let me, Mr Speaker—and that is that the previous Government allowed the jobseeker numbers to grow so significantly, even during a period of low unemployment, and our Government is committed to getting more people from welfare into work.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

In the context in which they were made, and within the facts known at the time, most definitely yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that he is not hung up on the use of the name “Kāinga Ora”, or does he agree with the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement that says, “All public service departments have their primary name in English except for those specifically related to Māori.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On this side of the House, we don’t have hang-ups—that’s number one. The second thing is we admit the majesty of the Māori New Zealand language, and it’s an intellectual muscle-builder for a young person and we’ve encouraged it from the time we arrived in Parliament, some of us. But that said, community housing, or housing the community, has become not that; it’s become some woke virtue-signalling thing where people don’t get housed, and where housing displacement—or people waiting for houses—went up by a massive 33 percent. So we want delivery on policy, not virtue signalling any longer.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Chris Bishop that “Kāinga Ora is known as ‘Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities’, I don’t know a single person who calls it ‘Homes and Communities’”, and is that within the spirit of the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement that all Public Service departments have their primary name in English except for those specifically related to Māori?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, Mr Bishop was saying something terribly honest, and everybody understands it, and everybody can sympathise with it because the essence of all communications is understanding and comprehension, excepting over there [points to Opposition benches]. They’d rather virtue signal so that most people don’t know. I can tell you now that when it comes to Waka Kotahi, or Kāinga Ora for that matter, people are concerned about getting a safe, affordable house. They want to get roads that are tarsealed and potholes that are fixed up, not some virtue-signalling thing which has certain people over there thinking that that’s what people want for public policy. Ordinary, hard-working New Zealanders can expect something better.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Winston Peters, “The announcement today that New Zealanders will now have a direct pathway to citizenship in Australia is a monumental success that should be celebrated and congratulated”, or does he agree with David Seymour, “Actually, we just got played by the Aussies. They’ve done a raid on New Zealand talent”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I have to say that—not by any sense of bias—I prefer the first comment, because every now and again, even a fool can get it right. Mr Hipkins went over there and spoke to “Albo”—Mr Hipkins went over to there and saw “Albo” and “Albo” saw the reasonableness of our complaint. And it arose yesterday, when it came out that someone who left this country at two years of age was sent back here as a 501—that’s wrong. But in the big picture, Mr Seymour was right when he said this, because he could have expected two Labour Ministers across the Tasman to have got so much more.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Government still intend to raise $170 million for its tax cuts by taxing offshore gambling, or does he agree with the 2023 New Zealand First manifesto that that’s just not credible?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The purpose of good governance—and Ministers over here understand that—is to ask good questions and keep on asking good questions and get the right answer. That manifesto was setting out some very good questions—I’m still waiting for the answer—and I admit the possibility—[Interruption] No, no, because we’ve been in business and know how business works, we don’t act like that—laugh and scoff and jeer. They couldn’t run a school tuck shop. In our case, we ask good questions and we’re still waiting for the answer.

Tama Potaka: In relation to Kāinga Ora, is the Acting Prime Minister aware that the number of families on the social housing wait-list went from 5,000 to over 25,000 under the recent Labour leadership?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Could I say to the Minister of Māori Affairs, I’m dreadfully saddened to have to confirm that, but that is what happens, and it shows you the difference between a once-great party that came into this country way back in the 1930s and started building houses because they had practical people in Parliament who knew what poverty tasted and felt like, coming out of the Depression. Yet this modern version has come in with these virtue-signalling policies and done the very worst for Māori, and they stand there and claim to be the paramount voice for Māori today.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with that noted economic commentator Winston Peters that the National Government’s tax plan, “they’re going to make all this money, but every front-line economist has said, ‘Hang on, you’ve got a hole of $500 million a year.’ That’s a hole of $2.1 billion over four years. How can you pay for your tax cuts?”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The marvellous thing about consultative politics is that you learn things and, when you’ve had that discussion, you find a solution—and the Minister of Finance has already found it.

Hon Grant Robertson: What’s that? Smoking?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No—no. Now, see, if he wants to talk about smoking and the Māori voice, they have taken from Māori and Pasifika in the last 12 years—[Interruption] Listen up. No, no, no. Can I just say, I know what my—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What did your iwi say?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Excuse me, don’t tell me about my iwi; I started it. The Ngātiwai Land Retention Committee—[Interruption]. Listen up, you—the Ngātiwai Land Retention Committee was started by a guy called Winston Peters in 1974-75. Right here, right now, you’re looking at the founder. So don’t preach to me about that. Now, if you want to talk about Māori and smoking—[Interruption]. No, no—I know that you’ve got no familiarity with the marae, but shouting won’t help you. I’ve got the microphone and I’ve got plenty patience, OK? I haven’t finished yet.

SPEAKER: You may not think you’ve finished, but I do. And I don’t mean that in terms of your career.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Thank you very much. Can I carry on now?

SPEAKER: No.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Point of order. With respect, Mr Speaker, they were saying something coarse. And everybody’s entitled to interject now and again, but a screaming, volatile mass like we heard over there is not what Parliament looks like. I respect their right to interject—I think it’s exciting and it makes exhilarating these debates—but that sort of clownish, cacophonic behaviour doesn’t work.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Acting Prime Minister agree with Winston Peters, “Sadly, the spokesperson for the National Party said, ‘If I don’t give you a tax cut, I’m going to resign’. Wow—could be a chance to have a decent Minister of Finance with a bit of experience.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: But the member of Parliament and now finance Minister said that, is giving us a tax cut—get used to it.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by the principle in the Government’s coalition agreements that “decisions will be based on data and evidence”, including for economic and fiscal policy?

Yes.

Hon James Shaw: Has she seen any data or evidence that shows that increasing bus fares for the lowest earning New Zealanders will cut their living costs?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am aware of evidence that shows that the biggest barrier to people choosing public transport is the reliability and frequency of public transport. Therefore, ours is a Government that will continue to invest in public transport infrastructure to ensure public transport is reliable and available.

Hon James Shaw: Has she seen any data or evidence that shows that increasing bus fares for the lowest earning New Zealanders will cut their living costs?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I have seen evidence that the living costs of lower income New Zealanders are based on a range of things. This includes their incomes and whether they are growing and how highly taxed those incomes are. This is why our Government is committed to lower taxes for middle and lower income New Zealanders. Their living costs are also affected by the inflation rate, which has been allowed to be out of control for the last 2½ years, which is why our commitment to fiscal discipline will aid in bringing inflation under control. Their living costs are affected by a range of factors, and our Government is committed to reducing their cost of living.

Hon James Shaw: What data and evidence has she seen about children’s ability to learn the basics brilliantly if they are hungry because the school lunch programme has been cut?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, obviously I’m not the Minister of Education, but I understand that the evidence to suggest that the school lunch programme has in any way increased literacy or numeracy achievement is extremely limited indeed.

Hon James Shaw: What data and evidence has she seen that shows that renters can expect to see their rents decrease as a result of the changes to the brightline test?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It is demonstrably evident that if the costs we place on landlords are reduced, then they will have fewer costs that they need to meet through the rents that they charge.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by all of the fiscal and economic commitments made in the coalition agreements signed by National, New Zealand First, and ACT?

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

Hon Grant Robertson: How, specifically, will the tax cut programme in the coalition agreements be funded?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The tax relief that our Government will deliver next year will be funded through a range of savings, reprioritisations, and new revenue measures. We announced a down payment, today, of $7.5 billion worth of savings we have already booked. The next step is a baseline savings exercise to reduce the back-office and consultancy spending of Government departments, and to drive more efficiency from Government programmes. We’re also initiating full cost recovery for immigration levies, enhancing the audit capabilities of IRD, and taxing online casinos.

Hon Grant Robertson: Is it correct that the funding arrangements for tax cuts were not in the mini-Budget as Nicola Willis promised throughout the election campaign?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It is correct that the mini-Budget contained $7.5 billion worth of savings, as well as concrete actions to deliver the next range of savings that will support tax relief. It’s also clear that under the former Minister’s watch—

Hon Grant Robertson: Oh, right. We’re moving into something you’re not responsible for.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —we had spending go up, up, up; tax go up, up, up; and very little delivered.

Hon Grant Robertson: Can, then, the Minister confirm that landlords and speculators can confirm that they have a tax cut, but New Zealanders, who she promised income tax cuts to, are none the wiser today about how they’ll be paid for, what they’ll be, or even when they’ll get them?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I disagree with a number of characterisations in the member’s question. But New Zealanders should listen up: at this mini-Budget, we are bringing not just economic responsibility back, but we are giving them the guarantee that next year they will get income tax relief.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister of Finance confirm that she’s part of a coalition Government where all three parties are wholly committed to delivering the levels of tax relief to the people promised it, in the time frame it was promised by her all along; however, the Government is also taking advice on how to more effectively and efficiently do so, and that taking advice and considering different perspectives is a strength, not a weakness?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That’s right. And I would put to the member: a way of summarising that is what New Zealanders care about is the size of the sausage, not how it’s delivered. And how we will deliver it—[Interruption] It’s been a year of bad quotes from me.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Talking about a right sausage, did she hear Mr Robertson’s interjection when he shouted out, “You’re not responsible for it”; and can she confirm that she’s not responsible for his messes, and isn’t she grateful for that?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: With respect to the House, I think, enough talk of messes, sausages, and holes.

Question No. 6—Health

6. to the Minister of Health: What recent reports has he received on the performance of the health system?

The latest clinical performance metrics report released by Health New Zealand yesterday shows the amount of people waiting more than four months for a first specialist assessment, nationally, has grown enormously from 35,863 in September 2022 to 59,817 in September 2023. That is a 66.79 percent increase in just 12 months. Meanwhile, emergency department (ED) wait times have also deteriorated with only 67.6 percent of those presenting to ED being seen in under six hours. We will work with the sector to improve this.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What steps is the Minister taking to tackle the ongoing challenges around the 2020 health reforms?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Yesterday I announced my plans to appoint a Crown observer to Health New Zealand. This was a carefully considered decision but is necessary to work with the sector to reset a clear focus on health outcomes and to improve our health system. We will be a Government of outcomes and tackle the ongoing challenges left over from Labour’s 2022 reforms.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What action will this Government take to improve the health outcome for all New Zealanders?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This Government will take many actions to improve health outcomes for all New Zealanders. The 2022 health reforms were proclaimed by previous Ministers as providing better health results, but all that they achieved was more money spent and more bureaucracy while delivering longer waiting times, dire workforce shortages, and worse outcomes for all. That is why, amongst other things, we will be setting clear health targets in the new year.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What benefits will the introduction of health targets have for New Zealanders?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: As we have seen through the clinical performance metrics and many other measures, the past six years have caused an obvious deterioration in our healthcare system, despite the hard work of the board and our health workforce. The introduction of clear targets will help change that. We will deliver better health outcomes for all New Zealanders; put simply, we agree with clinicians that health targets save lives.

SPEAKER: Yes, OK, that’s great, but don’t use question time to attack previous Governments—pretty simple.

Question No. 7—Immigration

7. to the Minister of Immigration: What is the Government doing to enable people living in New Zealand to bring family members here from Gaza?

SPEAKER: I’ve been advised that this answer might be a little longer. It is an important matter, so please proceed.

New Zealand is deeply distressed by the escalating crisis and loss of life in Gaza. In my capacity as immigration Minister, I can confirm that we are continuing to monitor the situation closely, along with our partners. I have been advised that the steps Immigration New Zealand has taken related to the Gaza conflict are to centralise applications into one office, prioritise those visa applications, and provide case by case support to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade for New Zealand citizens and residents attempting to leave Gaza and travel to New Zealand. In addition, I have been assured by the Minister of Foreign Affairs that all New Zealand citizens and permanent residents who wanted to leave Gaza have now left, and this was a priority for the new Government.

Golriz Ghahraman: Will the Minister create a special visa category for Palestinians with family members in Gaza, as was made available to Ukrainian New Zealanders in 2022?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Our current response of prioritising visa applications from people affected by the conflict is in line with our international partners, but I can assure the member that we will continue to monitor the situation very closely.

Golriz Ghahraman: What makes the situation in Gaza different from the situation in Ukraine, given that the scale of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is actually far worse, having claimed the lives of at least 20,000 civilians—more than 7,000 children—in the past nine weeks?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I am advised by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment that Ukraine was a different situation in that we were unable to, in that situation, work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to take refugees. However, I want to also reiterate that at that time we were working in accordance with our international partners in a global, coordinated situation to take people from Ukraine. In this situation, I am confident that we are processing visas with priority, we are escalating them where required, and we have a team set up, as I said, to make sure that that’s happening. I can also assure the member that we are using the exception to instructions process and being very permissive where we can. I’d also like to let the member know that there have only been a very small handful of applications, but all the steps that I mentioned just previously are being taken with those applications.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is the Minister aware that the Immigration New Zealand website currently provides no practical evidence or support to people seeking to bring their family members to New Zealand from Gaza, and, if so, will she direct Immigration New Zealand to rectify this?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I asked my officials this morning if there was some information online about this process and they assured me that there was, but I will go back to them and make sure that it is more easily able to be found, and I’m happy to also work with the member from the Greens if you’d like a briefing on this with me and my officials.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What is the average processing time for family members of people living in Gaza, and how does this compare with other family members who are trying to bring their families to Aotearoa?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I asked that question of immigration officials this morning. It’s very difficult to know, because at the moment the number of applications that we’ve had are only divisible by offshore and onshore. So of those offshore, at this point in time, I am unable to tell how many of those people are actually in Gaza. On top of that, I’ve asked for further information to find out how many there are in Gaza. I wasn’t able to find out in the time allocated, but what we will do from here is find out how many are actually in Gaza and then what visa type they’re trying to come in on, because it matters. It makes quite a big difference in terms of the visa that they’re applying for. If it’s a visitor visa, it’s usually more quick. If it’s a resident visa, it can take a little bit longer. But I am going to find out that information as quickly as we possibly can, but we do have to go through every single application and look individually as to where they are, if they’ve given us that information.

Question No. 8—Transport

8. to the Minister of Transport: What reports has he seen on State Highway 25A in the Coromandel?

This morning, State Highway 25A reopened in time for Christmas after the completion of a new bridge following the significant damage caused by weather events earlier this year. This critical route was seriously damaged between Kōpū and Hikuai, but after impressive and hard work by the many construction workers on site, the bridge has reopened in record time.

Hon Scott Simpson: What will the reopening mean for locals and businesses and residents?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: With the busy summer holiday period upon us, today’s reopening will provide much-needed benefits for local businesses and residents in the Coromandel. Summer is a critical time for the Coromandel, and the reopening of State Highway 25A will welcome visitors back and provide a much-needed boost to the local economy. The hard-working MP for the Coromandel has strongly advocated for the reopening of this critical route, and today’s reopening brings certainty for his constituents and for mine.

SPEAKER: That’s absolutely enough. If I was strict, I’d say that Minister had no responsibility for the Coromandel economy, so just keep it tight.

Hon Scott Simpson: Is this project an example of how the New Zealand Transport Agency and contractors can work to get things done more quickly in other parts of New Zealand?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: State Highway 25A in the Coromandel demonstrates that New Zealand has the capacity and ability to deliver infrastructure at speed and within budget. The hard work of contractors and the reduction in red tape meant that this bridge could be opened in time for Christmas. The Government is committed to addressing the lengthy and expensive Resource Management Act process, fast-tracking consents to make it easier to deliver the infrastructure New Zealand needs.

Hon Scott Simpson: In his capacity as Minister of Transport, what Christmas message does the Minister have for the Coromandel, their locals, and the tens of thousands of people who will want to enjoy visiting the Coromandel this coming summer?

SPEAKER: Keep it tight.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, a very merry Christmas to everyone travelling across State Highway 25A and the Coromandel. May they enjoy the beautiful road and the beautiful beaches of the Coromandel.

Tangi Utikere: Does the Minister accept that the State Highway 25A project was announced by the previous Government on 9 May 2023, began construction in June 2023, and came in under budget more than three months ahead of schedule, and has absolutely nothing to do with any actions taken by the present Government other than to simply cut the ribbon?

SPEAKER: You know that the use of questions probably does cut both ways. So I’m doing my best to make sure that the former Government doesn’t get too criticised. But the former Government should try not to use question time for that political purpose. It was skilfully done, I’ll grant you.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As the saying goes: “Success has many fathers.” But those who deserve the credit for this impressive work for State Highway 25A are the project teams, construction workers who worked hard days, day and night, to get this new bridge. I want to thank the project team and wish all the construction workers a very merry Christmas.

Hon Chris Bishop: Is the Minister aware of previous examples of Ministers cutting ribbons on projects that may have started life under a previous Government, including projects that former political parties may have opposed before they were constructed?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I am, indeed. In fact, I remember a certain member of Parliament for Remutaka complaining about the so-called “holiday highway” before turning up to cut the ribbon. I’m very pleased for the member of Coromandel for the hard work he’s put into this.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact, Minister—[Interruption]—

SPEAKER: Just wait for a bit of quiet.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact, Minister, that when, on 14 October, it was known there was going to be a new Government, work expedited, and this is not the fastest project this new Government has delivered?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: That is something which I’d love to say is correct, but I must reiterate my points: I thank all the contractors and construction workers for this project.

Question No. 9—Environment

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Does she stand by her—

SPEAKER: Sorry—could you start again? We’ve just got too much talk over here. Please start again.

9. to the Minister for the Environment: Does she stand by her answer given to primary oral question No. 11 yesterday; if so, which of the objectives of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 would she prioritise above the health and wellbeing of water bodies and freshwater ecosystems?

Yes, I do stand by my statement. We do not agree with the hierarchy of objectives, and that is why we have undertaken to replace the National Policy Statement (NPS) for Freshwater Management 2020 to ensure more balanced, enduring, and sustainable outcomes. We have been clear that we will undertake a full and robust consultation process to replace the national policy statement and rebalance Te Mana o te Wai. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to give priorities when we will be entering a full consultation round.

Hon Rachel Brooking: So can the Minister therefore confirm that she would not prioritise the objective of health needs of people over the commercial use of water?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: We have indicated that we would be looking for a balanced approach that would be more enduring and more sustainable, and therefore that consultation process will be with all stakeholders to ascertain all interests in fresh water.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Given her statement yesterday that she intends 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, is she proposing to abandon national environmental standards entirely or will she retain freshwater bottom line standards?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: We are very clear on this side that people on the ground are the ones that know solutions, and we’ve got some wonderful examples of that with catchment groups, and so therefore we will be ensuring that our consultation is to that level of people on the ground who have the solutions who can then bring that into the new NPS.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Point of order. That question was specifically about national environmental standards, and the answer related to the national policy statement.

SPEAKER: The second part of it asked if she was going to drop some of those. The member knows that you can’t ask a “yes or no answer” question.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Will she commit to ensure that it remains the case that tangata whenua are actively involved in freshwater management, including decision-making processes, and Māori freshwater values are identified and provided for?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Absolutely. We are committed to a full consultation process including iwi and various other groups that have an interest in fresh water.

Question No. 10—Rural Communities

10. to the Minister for Rural Communities: What recent reports has he seen regarding rural communities?

I have seen a report—the extreme weather insights and observations 2023 report from the Ombudsman. I welcome this report but am sobered by its contents. This report writs large the necessity for improvements in rural infrastructure, transport links, and telecommunication. It highlights the plight of those in more isolated communities who felt they were ignored and abandoned by Government agencies and emergency response in favour of those places more, I quote, “in the news”. This reflects my own observations on the ground during my recent ministerial visit to Tai Rāwhiti. Rural roading was in a dire and often dangerous state. Locals, while stoic, were clearly stressed and anxious. This Government is committed to funding the recovery and not forgetting the plight of those in the Tai Rāwhiti and other cyclone-affected areas. I thank the Prime Minister; the Minister of Transport, Simeon Brown; and the Minister of cyclone recovery, Mark Mitchell, for also visiting these areas. This is a Government that has put cyclone recovery at point 6 and point 7 in our 100-day plan. It is a strong signal to those communities that we will not abandon them.

SPEAKER: Hon Mark Patterson, that was a very long answer.

Hon MARK PATTERSON: It was a good one, though.

SPEAKER: Well, not necessarily. There was a bit of superfluous stuff in there. You could do better.

Jamie Arbuckle: Has he seen reports on the increase in confidence that rural communities have in this Government’s policies?

Hon MARK PATTERSON: I have seen another report, and rural communities have every confidence in this Government. The proof of the pudding was in the fourth-quarter Rabobank Rural Confidence survey. Of course, farmers are a key driver in rural prosperity and, indeed, the prospects of all New Zealand, accounting for 82 percent of all of our merchandise exports. Their net confidence has leapt 25 percent, and I quote from the report—

Hon Shane Jones: Tell us more!

Hon MARK PATTERSON: I will tell you more. A direct quote from the report: “Government policy emerged as a major contributor to higher overall farmer confidence.” Farmers are now more confident they have a Government that understands them and has a policy platform to address their issues.

Ingrid Leary: Given his confidence in this Government, does he agree with the letter written by MP Mark Patterson, dated 7 December 2023, supporting my letter to the Minister of Education on 1 December 2023, requesting core funding of $90,000 per annum for the Tokomairiro Forestry Pathways course be provided by the Ministry of Education for the next three years, and, if so, will he commit to working with that Minister to ensure funding is forthcoming?

Hon MARK PATTERSON: I’ve already committed within that letter to taking exactly that course of action.

Jamie Arbuckle: What Government policies can rural communities look forward to?

Hon MARK PATTERSON: Well, there are too many to list, but of course the highlight for us on this side of the House is the $1.2 billion for regional infrastructure overseen by my colleague the Hon Shane Jones, and that will go some way to addressing the Ombudsman’s concerns, as outlined in his report. The fast-tracking Resource Management Act provisions will unlock regional economies and make it easier to build renewable energy projects and get access to extracting natural resources, which will turbocharge our rural economies.

Question No. 11—Education

11. to the Minister of Education: Has she seen any reports on student attendance?

I have. Today, the Ministry of Education released the term 3 attendance data—on schedule. This data shows that our attendance rates remain low, with just 45.9 percent of students attending school regularly. The data also revealed that there has been zero improvement in regular attendance rates from term 3 last year when regular attendance was 46 percent, a figure which I find incredibly disappointing.

Ryan Hamilton: Why is regular attendance important?

ERICA STANFORD: In short, a wise man once said, “To succeed in education, you need to show up. Attendance and achievement go hand in hand.”, and missing school leads to lower achievement. Regular school attendance is also connected to current and future outcomes like student wellbeing, future employment, and income levels. We have a moral, social, and economic imperative to deliver better results than were achieved over the last six years.

Ryan Hamilton: Has she seen any other reports on attendance?

ERICA STANFORD: Yes, I have. A report by the Education Review Office shows only 41 percent of parents are comfortable with their child missing a week or more of school a term. This equates to missing a year of school by the time they are 16. We need a change of direction to restore the habit of attending school regularly. Our coalition agreement with ACT commits to addressing low attendance by prioritising data reporting and enforcement action.

Ryan Hamilton: Is attendance a priority for this Government?

ERICA STANFORD: Yes, it most certainly is. Students need to be in the classroom learning the basics and on a pathway towards educational success. We will continue to ensure the right supports are in place to help families get their children to school. We will continue to work with schools to understand the local drivers of absenteeism and how they can be addressed, and we will be clear about our expectations. This Government will be sending a clear message that there is a moral and legal obligation for children to attend school. Parent attitude counts, and together, parents, schools, and the Government have a role to play in turning around these abysmal results.

Hon Jan Tinetti: How will the Minister ensure that learners stay away from school when they are indeed sick, as has been the focus over the last few years—as confirmed in the Ministry of Education’s own report, that states that “short-term illness/medical absences … continued to be the main driver of non-attendance in term 3, 2023. The level of illness is associated with the continued incidence of COVID-19 and winter illnesses.”

ERICA STANFORD: Well, two things there—and one of those is the fact that I have already asked the ministry to look into this level of sickness, because it is interesting that the countries we compare ourselves to have far, far higher rates of attendance, and it would be interesting to find out why it is that New Zealand has such a high level of sickness and whether or not that is being used as an excuse. The other important thing to look at is the fact that the unjustified absences since 2017 have increased markedly. We have to have a change of direction and send a very clear message to parents that it is not OK to keep your children home from school.

David Seymour: Does the Minister intend to make it her practice to become an Olympic-level expert in obfuscating and justifying poor performance—as we saw in the previous question—or does this Government have a plan to actually improve attendance?

SPEAKER: No, I think we’ll let that one slide.

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I was just going to seek leave for the Labour Party to have an additional supplementary question to ask about school attendance.

SPEAKER: Well, the Labour Party may well seek leave themselves, but the member can’t do it on their behalf—and he also knows that that’s quite disorderly to undertake that. I think he’s being unduly influenced by a bench colleague.

Question No. 12—Workplace Relations and Safety

12. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Why did she decide to ignore advice by officials not to extend 90-day trials?

I didn’t. I have considered it. This Government is extending 90-day trials because of our long-term commitment to improving labour market flexibility so that businesses can create more and better jobs. Extending the availability of 90-day trials to give more businesses confidence to take a chance on new workers should be welcomed by all parties in this Parliament.

Camilla Belich: Why did she decide not to follow the advice commissioned by the Treasury that concluded there was no evidence that the ability to use 90-day trials significantly increased companies’ overall hiring?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: While the member may not see that there is significant benefit in extending the 90-day trials, there is benefit to the number of businesses that we have spoken to across New Zealand who have said that this is a top priority to give them confidence to hire more and better workers.

Camilla Belich: Why did she decide to ignore the Hon Chris Bishop, who told New Zealanders on 29 November 2023 that “We will introduce and refer to a select committee a bill to extend 90-day trial periods for all businesses”, when she decided to introduce a bill under urgency to do this without a select committee process?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Cabinet made that decision, and Cabinet has made the right decision.

Camilla Belich: What does she say to the many thousands of New Zealanders who are likely to lose their jobs for no good reason due to the extension of this policy, including unfair reasons like their weight, having a bereavement, or their hair colour?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Nobody currently employed will lose their job because of the extension of 90-day trials. Existing current employment terms remain. All this policy will do is give confidence to businesses who are looking to employ new workers—that gives them confidence to employ someone in the new year.

Camilla Belich: What does she say to the employees who are moving into new work who are likely to lose their jobs for unfair reasons—for example, their weight, having a bereavement, or, perhaps, their hair colour?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The member may wish to note that 90-day trials give the option for a new employment agreement. However, anybody who believes that they have been dismissed unjustifiably can bring a personal grievance still under the 90-day trial for unjustified disadvantage, discrimination, or sexual harassment—those will still remain.