Oral Questions

1. to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by—I better make sure I get the wording right! Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

In the context in which they were said and with the facts that were then known, yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Todd McClay that Winston Peters is “fast earning himself an international reputation as an apologist for Russia”; if not, why not?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because that statement was made without any relevance to the new circumstances that member finds himself in. He’s in Opposition. Ask questions that represent the Opposition, not when he was in Government.

Hon Grant Robertson: What?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It means ask questions that were relevant after this Government was formed, and not before. He should know that. That’s why he’s sitting over there.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: He didn’t say he didn’t disagree with it! Does he agree with Chris Bishop that Winston Peters often “makes false claims to the media and the public.”; if not, why not?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This may be a slow constitutional lesson, but the questions that we are required to answer pertain to when we formed this Government and thereafter, and probably for the next 25 years. In his case, he should be explaining who his possible unlucky successor is.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Paul Goldsmith that “Peters’ big mouth is harming Kiwi businesses”; if not, why not?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This is another lesson that’s going to take a long time to sink in, and that’s why we would like to relieve this Parliament for a few days and for a few weeks for them to lick their wounds because they are not learning the lesson that they lost. As their former deputy leader Michael Cullen said, “We won. You lost. Eat that!”

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with the Rt Hon Sir John Key, of Winston Peters, “Historically, he has always been sacked by prime ministers. It’s a very different style to mine and it’s rearward-looking.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As everybody knows, Mr Key made a lot of statements, but privately he’s a secret admirer of mine.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with David Seymour that Winston Peters has “fallen out with National twice, with half his own colleagues within New Zealand First, even though he hand-picked them. I mean, he can’t work with anybody. I think you’ll find that Chris Luxon is ultimately far too principled to try and work with them too.”, and, if not, why not?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: They say that all is fair in love and war and—dare I say it—politics. Those things that are said on the campaign—some are meant to be true, some are slightly inflated, and some are sometimes wrong. However, those words, again, said by Mr Seymour and Mr Luxon’s actions, and mine as well—we’re off to form a long-term, safe, successful Government.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by the principle in her Government’s coalition agreements that “decisions will be based on data and evidence”?

Yes. I stand by the full principle in the coalition agreements, which is that “decisions will be based on data and evidence, with programmes regularly assessed to see if they are delivering results.”

Hon James Shaw: In that case, does she stand by her statement that she has “seen evidence that the living costs of lower-income New Zealanders are based on a range of things”, and, if so, what data and evidence has she seen that increasing bus fares will lower the living costs of low and middle income New Zealanders?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I have seen information—which I would hope the member would also have access to—which shows that living costs consist of a range of things. Bus fares are one of those things. A very important factor is also what people’s after-tax incomes are. This is a Government that is committed to lifting after-tax incomes, including by delivering income tax reduction next year.

Hon James Shaw: So is she saying that increasing bus fares will decrease the cost of living for low-income New Zealanders?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That is not what I said. What I said is that we are a Government that is committed to addressing the cost of living across a range of factors, including ensuring that people have higher incomes—including those who use buses.

Hon James Shaw: What data and evidence has she seen on how much rents will decrease by and when, as a result of the changes to the brightline test?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The brightline test, having been extended to 10 years, has had the effect of stopping some people selling their properties, because they are trying to avoid that tax. I’ve not seen any evidence that extending the brightline test to 10 years lowered rents.

Hon James Shaw: What data and evidence has she seen on how much money will be returned to the pockets of New Zealanders by reducing the transparency of our tax system by repealing the tax reporting Act?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I reject the assertions in the member’s question. We have a very transparent tax system. We don’t need a silly Act that makes IRD write silly reports.

Hon James Shaw: So how much money will each New Zealander receive as a result of the repeal of the Act?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The purpose of the repeal of the Act was not to deliver direct money to New Zealanders. It was consistent with our coalition’s view that the Government should be focused on priorities. That member was a member of a Government that wrote endless reports about everything—and very little was delivered. We’re going to be quite different.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: What reports has she received on the state of the New Zealand economy?

Yesterday’s half-year update showed that New Zealand faces a number of economic and fiscal challenges, in particular the toxic combination of high inflation and interest rates, a slowing economy, and rising unemployment. But despite that challenging outlook, confidence in the economy is returning. ANZ’s Business Outlook shows business confidence is at the highest level since March 2015, and inflation expectations among businesses are the lowest in two years. We’ve got a lot more to do in the coming weeks and months, but it’s an early vote of confidence in our Government’s plan to beat inflation and get New Zealand’s economy back on track.

Miles Anderson: How are Kiwis responding to the Government’s first steps to rebuild the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: ANZ’s consumer confidence survey released earlier this week shows what ANZ described as “A hint of Christmas cheer”, as consumer confidence continues to bump up. In promising news, inflation expectations fell below 4 percent to 3.9 percent, the lowest level in three years. We are moving quickly to support the Reserve Bank in its fight to beat inflation, reducing Government spending, reducing costs on business, and clearing out broken regulations so we can get this economy moving again.

Miles Anderson: What economic challenges were revealed in the half-year update?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yesterday’s half-year update showed that with the last Government having let inflation soar, interest rates will have to remain higher for longer to get the inflation genie back in the bottle. That is tough news for Kiwis, who are struggling with the cost of living and now facing big hikes in the cost of servicing their mortgage. Our Government knows New Zealanders are doing it tough and we also know the only way to get ahead is with a strong economy. Low inflation, low interest rates, and consistent economic growth—that’s what Labour inherited in 2017 and it’s what we’ll be working hard to deliver again.

Miles Anderson: What next steps is the Government taking to support Kiwis with the cost of living?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Our Government is committed to delivering tax relief for hard-working New Zealanders. To support that commitment, yesterday we announced $7.5 billion of savings—our first three weeks of work to restore fiscal sustainability. It is no surprise that for six years Kiwis didn’t receive a cent of tax relief. When you have an addiction to spending, you just can’t afford to let New Zealanders keep more of what they earn. Our Government is setting out a new chapter, cutting the waste, delivering the basics, and letting New Zealanders spend a bit more of their own hard-earned money.

Hon Grant Robertson: Does she agree with National MP Miles Anderson, who said, “You would think if you were going to do tax cuts that they would be best to come in on 1 April, wouldn’t you, at the beginning of the tax year, so maybe they will be addressed in this mini-Budget. They’ll need to be included, anyway.”, and, if not, what message does she have for Mr Anderson?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: My message for Mr Anderson is: congratulations on winning your fine seat. You are going to be a fine representative, and I believe you will be someone who will stand up for farmers, the productive economy, those who run tourism operations, and those who create jobs and incomes in this country, so keep up the good work.

Hon Grant Robertson: Is Miles Anderson correct that any tax cuts should be addressed in the mini-Budget, and why weren’t they?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I think Miles Anderson is correct that New Zealanders yesterday enjoyed learning that this Government, in just three weeks, has made a $7.5 billion downpayment on tax relief, that we remain committed to delivering tax relief in July next year, and I think New Zealanders are also of the view that while Grant Robertson is obsessed with the arcane details of IRD tax programmes, actually, we’re a Government that’s getting on with it.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. 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: Will the total value of the savings and new revenue initiatives in the list that she released yesterday be used to fund the tax cuts programme in the coalition agreement?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As the member knows, savings, reprioritisation, and revenue can all contribute to the consolidated fund—

Hon Grant Robertson: Oh, so that’s how we’re going to do it now.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —to the accounts of the Government. Yes, we will be saving money, we will be reprioritising money, we will be raising revenue from new sources such as better audits at the Internal Revenue Department, and all of that will support two things. Yes, it will support income tax relief. It will also support better books.

Hon Grant Robertson: That’s heavy lifting there. Was the table of savings and initiatives that she issued in hard copy in the Budget lock-up yesterday a Treasury document?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Sorry, the member will have to repeat his question.

Hon Grant Robertson: Was the table of savings and initiatives that she issued in hard copy in the Budget lock-up yesterday a Treasury document?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That was a table provided to me by Treasury that had gone through a Treasury assurance process.

Hon Grant Robertson: What are the “good estimates” that Treasury has given her of the cost of her tax cut policy that she talked about on Radio New Zealand this morning?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Treasury have provided me with indicative costings of what it would cost to deliver on National’s personal income tax plan. They’ve caveated that carefully to say that it does depend on how we design that policy. According to the coalition agreement between National and ACT, we are still taking detailed design and implementation advice.

Hon Grant Robertson: Do the concepts of ACT’s income tax policy as a pathway to the delivery of tax cuts—that she noted just now in her answer and in her media release yesterday—include the reduction of the 39 percent top tax rate?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No.

Hon Grant Robertson: What other elements of ACT’s income tax policy remain on the table?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We are having detailed discussions. We’re taking a range of advice. There are a lot of options. What we also share in common is this: we want to deliver income tax relief next year, but it is our view that, in principle, where we can, we should allow New Zealanders to keep more of their own money. We shouldn’t be a Government that just keeps spending and spending and spending with very few results to show for that. New Zealanders had six years of that, and they didn’t like it very much.

Hon Grant Robertson: Does she agree with Cameron Bagrie that he is surprised that she is doubling down on tax cuts and they “would not be top of the pops for me” right now, or indeed, the OECD’s view that such tax cuts would add to inflation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’m not surprised that Cameron Bagrie has a view; he is entitled to it.

Hon Grant Robertson: Does she agree with the editorial in the New Zealand Herald this morning that her hyperbole will only serve to undercut her credibility in the long run, and will she join me in some taxpayer-funded hyperbole aversion courses, which apparently some colleagues think I need too?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’m sure that the member and I have many things in common. There are also many things that differentiate us. One of the things that I hope—

Hon Grant Robertson: The time I went to bed last night being one of them.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —and I’m working with this fine team of people to deliver is that we will be people who, when we say things, we deliver them. We will be people who make things happen and deliver results. And yes, it was very nice to see you last night, Mr Robertson.

Question No. 5—Housing

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

Today, I have released the terms of reference for the independent review into Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities, which was announced earlier this week. As a Government—[Interruption]

Hon Grant Robertson: He’s been demoted—there’s been a reshuffle.

SPEAKER: It is the last question time of the year—

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’m just pondering the number of jokes I could make about demotions on the other side.

SPEAKER: While I’m speaking, you’re not. It is the last question time of the year. Just try and keep it a little bit seemly. [Interruption] Well, you know what I mean: less noisy.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: As a Government, we are deeply concerned about the performance of Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities. Their operating deficit is already at $520 million and is forecast to continue to increase. This hits the Government books directly and so it’s important that Kāinga Ora’s financial position is sustainable. The terms of reference announced today will allow us to get answers to these crucial questions on their finances.

James Meager: What are the terms of reference he announced earlier today for the Kāinga Ora review?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The terms of reference include the financial viability of Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities, asset procurement and management, engagement with communities and tenants, tenancy management, their remit, and the current institutional arrangements and whether they incentivise better performance. The scope we’ve set will allow us to really get under the hood of Kāinga Ora and see what’s working and what isn’t. It will look at financial performance, the efficiency of their building and construction practices, as well as the things that impact Kiwi communities, like how they manage badly behaving tenants. I’m looking forward to seeing their findings and recommendations so we can get Kāinga Ora back on track.

James Meager: What do his recent Kāinga Ora announcements mean for hard-working New Zealanders like those in mid- and South Canterbury?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I thank the member for that very good question and admire his advocacy for those people. Kāinga Ora’s performance impacts every New Zealander, including those in mid- and South Canterbury, those who need support, or who may be looking for support in the future. It also impacts every New Zealander who pays tax, and they deserve to see their hard-earned tax dollars spent wisely. That’s why we are very focused on getting Kāinga Ora back on track.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. to the Minister of Finance: Does the Government intend to implement the National Party’s climate dividend policy; if so, will all the funding currently tagged to the Climate Emergency Response Fund be used to pay for it?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes, and consistent with our coalition agreements this will be subject to final consideration and decision making by Cabinet. In answer to the second part of the question, the mini-Budget yesterday confirmed decisions to enable the climate dividend, including returning funding from the Climate Emergency Response Fund, returning funding from the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund (GIDI), and the National Land Transport Fund.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Will every household receive an equal split of the total dividend funding pool adjusted for household size?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As the member would know if she had read the climate dividend policy which she referred to in her primary question, it is our intention that the climate dividend be used to support income tax reduction.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Will the climate dividend scale with the carbon price?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The member would have to repeat her question.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Certainly. Will the climate dividend scale with the carbon price?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’m not sure what the member is referring to. The climate dividend is intended to be the proceeds of the emissions trading scheme, and we intend that those proceeds will be used to support income tax reduction.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does she agree with the Treasury: “over the long term, the total cost of achieving emissions reductions targets and addressing the impacts of climate change will be significant and is likely to exceed provisions made in the forecasts”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government is committed to meeting our climate change commitments, and as part of our mini-Budget we considered the climate implications of returning funding from different initiatives including GIDI and the Clean Car Discount. We also considered how decisions might impact our ability to meet future emissions budgets. From the advice I have received, I do not expect mini-Budget decisions to pose a significant risk to achieving our first emissions budget.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Isn’t it true that she has no intention of meeting any recognised criteria of a climate dividend with her so-called climate dividend, and what it is is no more than a raid on funding for emissions reductions spending to fund her tax cuts?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, and I’ll tell you what I won’t do either: raid money from hard-working New Zealanders to give big cheques to profitable businesses like BlueScope Steel and Fonterra. Hard-working Kiwis deserve that money.

Question No. 7—Prime Minister

7. to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by his Government’s statements and policies on Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

That is the Government’s wont to do, but given that some parties in this House believe that the Treaty of Waitangi is an evolving document, they are confusingly arguing that we should not stand by our statements.

Tākuta Ferris: What examination and research, if any, has the Government undertaken into the adverse effects on Māori of the legislation currently being passed under urgency?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that the legislation being passed under urgency is for everybody in this country regardless of their gender, background, their creed, or where they came from. We treat people all the same and don’t have special treatment based on ancestry, which some in this House prefer.

Tākuta Ferris: Has the Government applied any Tiriti-based analysis on the policies currently being heard under urgency; if not, why not?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Treaty-based analysis which this Government refers was written 101 years ago by a Māori who got his law degree in the record time in this country in just two years flat. His name was Sir Apirana Ngata. That’s our authority; what’s yours?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, please, Mr Speaker. I believe Standing Order 112, relevancy to the question—this question isn’t about Tā Apirana Ngata or Ngāti Porou. It is about Te Tiriti, which was written before the existence of Apirana Ngata. If we could return to the kaupapa, please.

SPEAKER: Yes, but the question asked what authority the Government was relying on, and I think that was a reasonable answer in that regard.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: But that, with all due respect, again referring to Standing Order 112—relevancy—there is absolutely no relevance of Tā Apirana Ngata being used in this House, and being misrepresented. That was a hundred years old, and we’re talking about today.

SPEAKER: Well, with respect, I think it would be odd not to accept that Sir Apirana Ngata had a reasonable degree of authority when speaking about the Treaty.

Tākuta Ferris: How can he think it’s appropriate to deliberately exclude the Tiriti partner in the deliberation of legislation that will have a profound impact on the lives and wellbeing of whānau, tamariki, and even the mokopuna of himself?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I thank the member for acknowledging that the legislation will have a profound impact upon all the people he talked about and a profound impact for the better, based on their genuine needs, like was announced yesterday with respect to certain rates of treatment that were targeted directly to the Māori people—in this case, on the basis of need, not some preferential basis that arises from the beltway of Wellington or the sociological department of the universities with no connection with ordinary Māori.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Again, a point of order, please. Standing Order 121, “Personal reflections”—while we understand that the Deputy Prime Minister may not reflect and even rate Māori who go to university, that is a personal reflection and doesn’t address the question that was put down.

SPEAKER: No, I don’t think it constitutes a personal reflection. I’ve been listening very carefully to the answers, because I understand there’s some sensitivity, but I don’t think that’s a fair suggestion with regard to the Deputy Prime Minister’s answers this afternoon.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, please?

SPEAKER: Is it a new point of order or is it a continuation of the point of order?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: No, it wasn’t new.

SPEAKER: Well, give it a go; it’s the last day.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Oh, your generosity—thank you, e te Pīka. It is the offensive reference and certainly there is, I guess, a duty of care on us if we do look at 121 and the fact that we don’t want people out there thinking that there are ordinary Māori and not ordinary Māori. Every Māori matters, especially those who have opinions, and this is a personal reference. And kei te pai tērā, if that is indeed the Deputy Prime Minister’s views, but it isn’t one that should be reflected in the House. Everyone should be treated and talked about equally. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Excuse me. With all due respect, I think that if the member were to look at the Hansard responses from the Rt Hon Winston Peters, it would be hard to conclude that he was saying anything other than that. We’ll move on—question No. 8—

Hon James Shaw: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. In that exchange just now about the previous points of order, the Rt Hon Winston Peters was referred to as the Deputy Prime Minister, whereas in the question he is the Prime Minister or the Acting Prime Minister, and I just wanted some clarity about whether he was speaking as the Deputy Prime Minister or as the Prime Minister.

SPEAKER: OK, well, the point is that the point of order was not directed in the way perhaps it should have been, so I responded appropriately to that. But he is here today. He is acting as the Prime Minister—no question about that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Great news, James!

SPEAKER: And I’m sure he’s very happy for the nation to have learnt that by virtue of this question time.

Question No. 8—Health (Pharmac)

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and merry Christmas.

SPEAKER: Thanks very much. Merry Christmas to you too, Todd. Are we going to go around the whole House? It could take a while. But, actually—

TODD STEPHENSON: Just a special merry Christmas for you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: —we’d all like to get home for Christmas.

8. to the Associate Minister of Health (Pharmac): Why is the Government planning to change rules relating to the availability of pseudoephedrine?

Mr Speaker, merry Christmas. The Government, in its coalition documents, has a commitment to make pseudoephedrine-based cough and cold medicines available again after over a decade of New Zealanders being denied these medications. The simple reason is because when you’ve got the winter ills, you need the good stuff that works. People agree that pseudoephedrine medicines are more effective, and, unfortunately, the original purpose of restricting them—that was to stop the supply of methamphetamine—has completely failed as the price of that drug has, sadly, gone down and it has become more available. So the ban didn’t work; let’s get the good stuff back for the winter.

Todd Stephenson: Will the increased access to pseudoephedrine put us out of step with the rest of the world?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: No, it will not. Countries such as Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada all have pseudoephedrine-based medications, which are able to be purchased without a prescription. This change will move New Zealand into line with countries that we generally like to compare ourselves with.

Todd Stephenson: Does the Minister think the removal of the ban on pseudoephedrine could inform his approach in other areas of regulatory reform in New Zealand?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, I think it’s right across Government that we intend to take a very responsible approach to regulation. We don’t want to make rules if they don’t have a clear problem to be solved or if the benefits of the rule don’t exceed the cost. And clearly in the case of banning pseudoephedrine, the benefits have been trifling, the cost to people’s welfare have been large, and so the rule will go. And, yes, in conversation with the Government’s dynamic, young Minister for Regulation, I’ve learnt that that’s going to be our approach to many matters.

Question No. 9—Health

9. to the Minister of Health: Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Meri Kirihimete. What recent announcements has he made on uplifting immunisation rates for vulnerable population groups?

I’d firstly like to thank the health sector for keeping us safe over this past year and for their care and attention over the upcoming holiday period. Thank you. This morning the Prime Minister, Minister Potaka, and I visited Porirua to announce a $50 million package to help local providers to lift the immunisation rates for the most vulnerable in their communities. Low immunisation rates put children at risk of life-threatening, and, in some cases, deadly illnesses such as whooping cough and measles. It is critical that we take preventative health steps such as immunisation to protect those most in need and to drive better health outcomes.

Greg Fleming: What feedback has he received about this announcement?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I was very pleased to be joined at this event by local providers, iwi partners, and, of course, hard-working community-based health workers. It was great to hear from these providers on the work they do. We all have shared determination to make a difference for those with the greatest need and who have the highest risk. Delivering healthcare in communities helps relieve the burden on our under-pressure hospitals, and this Government looks forward to supporting local organisations who do such outstanding work for their people.

Greg Fleming: What other steps will the Minister take to lift immunisation rates?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: National campaigned on improved immunisation rates, and these will feature as part of our health targets, which will be announced as part of our 100-day plan. I look forward to 2024 and a new year when this Government will continue working to deliver timely access to quality healthcare for all New Zealanders.

Question No. 10—Māori Development

Moving now to question No. 10, in the name of the Hon Dr Duncan Webb but I think may be asked by the Hon Willie Jackson.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker, Meri Kirihimete to you—

SPEAKER: Yeah, yeah, it’s good. Do you mean it?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, do you want a translation? Merry Christmas.

SPEAKER: No, I asked if you mean it.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Absolutely. All the best to you and your whānau, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Oh, thank you—thanks very much, and the same compliment back to the member. How long is this going to go on for?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Ngā mihi o te Kirihimete ki a koe, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Kei te pai.

10. to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions?

Ngā mihi o te tau hou pōhutakawa ki a koe. At the time and in the context of making those statements, āna, particularly the statements that I have made that this coalition Government will be ruthlessly focused on delivering on the needs of Māori and all New Zealanders, particularly in housing, health, and education—unlike the previous Government.

Hon Willie Jackson: Has the Minister indicated that the funding of the Waitangi Tribunal will be reduced either directly or indirectly, and, if so, is he using a reallocation of resources to help fund tax cuts?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Kāore au i te paku mahara ki tērā kōrero i kī mai ai au ki te marea.

[I don’t recall at all that statement that I made to the public.]

Hon Willie Jackson: Then why has the Waitangi Tribunal senior leadership team informed the tribunal officers of cost cuts and Judge Wainwright of the tribunal has stated that cost cuts are necessary across all inquiries in the current financial year and that financial constraints are expected to continue and possibly intensify?

TAMA POTAKA: I have not spoken to Judge Wainwright in many, many years.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Has he considered access to justice issues that arise for Māori claimants from budget cuts, and how does he expect to resolve these issues when he cuts funding designed to address claims brought in relation to Crown breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi?

TAMA POTAKA: I have not asked for any budget cuts in the Waitangi Tribunal. I have no recollection of the comments that have been made.

Hon Willie Jackson: Is the Minister, along with the Prime Minister, prepared to front up at Waitangi in February 2024 to discuss why he is looking at cutting funding to the Waitangi Tribunal, and, if not, why not?

TAMA POTAKA: As I have mentioned before in this Whare, I look forward to the manaakitanga and the hospitality of our Ngāpuhi relatives in the motu at Waitangi 2024, and I do not have any recollection of talking to anyone about cutting the funding of the Waitangi Tribunal. Tīhei mauri ora!

SPEAKER: Question No. 11 in the name of Ricardo Menéndez March—Feliz Navidad.

Question No. 11—Social Development and Employment

11. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Feliz Navidad, Mr Speaker. What, if anything, is she doing to end poverty for people receiving a benefit as we head into the holiday season?

Our Government will continue to make benefit and tax credit payments over this time, and in April, main benefits will be increased through the adjustment by the cost of living. This change will protect the real incomes of benefit recipients while putting the benefits system on a more sustainable footing. This early decision is expected to mean that main benefits will be higher next year than they would have been if we had retained the current index to wage growth. Assistance through the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) will continue over the Christmas period to ensure that people can contact MSD if they need support. This Government’s view is that the best route out of poverty is through paid employment. My officials have already begun work on how we can better support people off welfare and into jobs.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree with recent analysis that found that changes made to benefits will mean that over 300,000 people already living below the poverty line will be up to $3,120 worse off, per year, by the end of this decade?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I agree with indexation of benefits to the Consumers Price Index (CPI), which means that the real costs that people face on welfare will be taken care of. And I agree that during this dire cost of living crisis the Government’s focus and priority will be how to alleviate that to reduce people’s hardship.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Will she continue implementing any of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group recommendations, such as a recommendation to index income support to movements in average wages or prices, whichever is higher, and, if not, why not?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: This Government has made an early decision, as I said in my primary answer, to index main benefits to the cost of living. This is to adequately reflect the costs that those on benefit face.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she believe that people receiving income support deserve to live in poverty, and, if not, why won’t she lift benefit levels above the poverty line?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: This side of the House doesn’t want anyone living in poverty, which is why we absolutely have a relentless drive and focus on getting more on welfare into work where they will have higher incomes, more opportunities and choices, and I will never, ever make any excuse for that.

Hūhana Lyndon: Is she aware of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and their report that has shared that they’re seriously concerned at the disproportionate number of tamariki Māori and Pasifika experiencing food insecurity and housing deprivation in Aotearoa New Zealand, and, if you are, will you lift main benefits above the poverty line?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: This Government’s very clear focus is supporting individuals and families into work, which will lift their income and lift them out of poverty. Sixty percent of the children currently living in material hardship are in benefit-dependent homes, so we will focus on how we support more people off welfare and into work. It benefits them; more importantly, it benefits their children.

Hūhana Lyndon: What is she doing to ease Christmas pressure on our front-line community services such as Whangārei’s own 155 Whare Kai social supermarket, where the CEO said to me—and I quote—“Whānau are going hungry. Kai continues to be our highest demand. Our 155 Whare Kai supermarket is booked through to February already. It is very sad and it’s getting worse in our community.”?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I met with organisations in the Food Network just yesterday and acknowledge the work that they are providing on the ground across New Zealand, and I also acknowledge that this is an incredibly challenging time because of economic mismanagement by the previous Government that has driven the cost of living higher for longer—

SPEAKER: That’s enough. That’s enough, thank you.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. I don’t believe the question was addressed. The question was in relationship to actions—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry—points of order are heard in silence. Please start again.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I don’t believe the question was addressed. The question was in relationship to actions, not in relationship to the past Government, and at no point did she talk about or mention any points of actions that she would be taking in relationship to the quote that was given.

SPEAKER: Well, previous Speakers’ rulings do allow a Minister to refer to circumstances in their current portfolio that may lead to difficulties for them because of previous Government actions. So I don’t know that that was particularly out of scope.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Speaking to the point of order, the question was none the less asking about what she would do in relationship to the quote. I take your point that she can point to previous conversations, but she did not address the one and only leg of the question, which was about what she would be doing.

SPEAKER: Yes, I know, but the Minister is a Minister of the Crown, a Minister of the Government. They don’t act individually; they act collectively.

Question No. 12—Revenue

12. to the Minister of Revenue: What announcements has he made regarding the Taxation Principles Reporting Act?

This week I have announced that the Government will be repealing the Taxation Principles Reporting Act. This Act requires IRD to report against a set of principles as decided by the previous Government. Unfortunately, this Act is little more than a make-work programme, using valuable IRD resources on producing reports rather than focusing on core business. Repealing this Act will allow IRD to deliver on the real priorities for our tax system.

Dan Bidois: What are the principles this Government does support for the tax system?

Hon SIMON WATTS: This Government is committed to making sure that the tax system is as simple as possible to navigate. Making it easy for individuals and businesses to interact with the tax system is good for them and better for the system as a whole. The Government is also committed to delivering tax relief for Kiwis and the boost in their back pocket to those who need it most. We’ll do a whole lot more on a yearly basis than such reporting proposed under this Act.

Dan Bidois: What feedback has he seen from the sector on the Taxation Principles Reporting Act?

Hon SIMON WATTS: The previous Government received extensive feedback on the Act from stakeholders when they passed it into law earlier this year. The message from them was clear: this Act provided no benefit to the tax system—

SPEAKER: Yep, that’s enough. Thank you. That’s enough. Is there another supplementary on that? OK.