Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What plans does the Government have for supporting the Reserve Bank to achieve low and stable inflation?

Inflation has been out of the Reserve Bank’s target range now for 2½ long years, and New Zealanders are doing it tough in a cost of living crisis. The public knows that this Government’s commitment to beating inflation is rock-solid, which is why, later this evening, the Government will introduce legislation returning the Reserve Bank to a single focus on inflation. After 30 years of an extremely successful inflation-targeting regime, where the Reserve Bank largely managed to control inflation, the previous Government muddied the waters by introducing a secondary objective to focus on employment as well as inflation. Now, as the Reserve Bank wrestles with trying to bring inflation back under control, our Government will clarify the bank’s objectives and support public confidence that inflation can and will be returned below 3 percent.

David MacLeod: What support has she had from the Reserve Bank in returning the bank to a single focus on inflation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I wrote to the Reserve Bank outlining proposed changes to the monetary policy remit last week and the governor wrote back offering the Reserve Bank’s support for the changes, noting that “Giving the inflation objective priority will assist the credibility of the inflation target.” I want to thank the Reserve Bank for their support in recent days as we move back to a single focus on inflation. I know the Government and the bank are in lockstep in our shared goal of getting inflation back under control.

David MacLeod: What other plans does the Government have for achieving low and stable inflation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Amending the Reserve Bank Act is an important step but just one step in our plan to beat inflation. The governor was right when he said monetary policy needs mates, but the mates have been few and far between for the last few years. For years, the last Government’s only response to inflation was more spending. Instead of just delivering income tax relief, they experimented with broken policies like the cost of living payment and, during their term in office, managed to increase Government spending by 80 percent. And yet, which New Zealander can point to a central government service that is 80 percent better?

Hon Grant Robertson: This is not actually within the Standing Orders.

SPEAKER: A bit of order—that’s enough.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The past Government may be prepared to put more fuel on the inflation fire, but we won’t.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Government not just wasting the House’s time removing the Reserve Bank’s dual mandate, as the governor said in response to my questioning in 2022 that it had not changed their approach to monetary policy and targeting inflation—virtue-signalling, if you will?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I note that both the Treasury and the Reserve Bank are supportive of an approach to monetary policy that more clearly prioritises achieving price stability.

Hon Grant Robertson: On what date will inflation fall below 3 percent as a result of this piece of legislation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Quicker than under your watch! But I would note that I asked the member the same question when he was the Minister of Finance, and as he well knows, the Reserve Bank is required to return inflation within the target band over the medium term. This very point is one that the coalition has committed to exploring, and we will be taking advice on whether we should better define the medium term so that New Zealanders can have even greater confidence about the time period in which inflation will come under control.

David MacLeod: What other plans does the Government have for achieving low and stable inflation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government recognises that inflation has many influences. We are also committed to reducing costs on business which end up being passed on to New Zealanders, and this will help reduce inflationary pressure in the economy. We’re already taking actions through our 100-day plan, including ending the ute tax, abolishing the Government’s broken Resource Management Act reforms, restoring flexibility in the labour market, and cancelling Labour’s plans for fuel tax hikes next year.

Question No. 2—Acting Prime Minister

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

With regard to evidence and information at the time of those statements, yes. But, of course, where new information or evidence emerges, we acknowledge that and don’t just carry on like a bigoted lefty shill.

SPEAKER: Can I just remind the member that the question is to the Acting Prime Minister and Hansard will record that.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with the statement made by then Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters in 2018 that the oil and gas ban “makes sense” and that introducing the ban was the change that New Zealanders wanted?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I just say that the Prime Minister and this Government have its settings on the future, and if the Prime Minister and that member with the question were to go back and examine the time and the place when that statement was made, there was a ban on at the time. Does that member not remember that?

Hon Marama Davidson: Is reopening the New Zealand coast to oil and gas exploration a contradiction to the Minister of Climate Change’s call for a global agreement to phase out fossil fuels at COP28?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister: right now at COP 28, they are wrestling with that very issue, and they’ll be probably working days longer than that because they haven’t come to an agreement. And the two representatives at that time—the previous member and Minister in charge of it and the present Minister—are doing a fine job to ensure that New Zealand’s commitments remain the same going forward.

Steve Abel: Does he agree with the United Nations Secretary-General that “the 1.5 degree limit is only possible if we ultimately stop burning all fossil fuels, not reduce, not abate?”, and if not, why not?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With respect to that questioner, the UN Secretary-General Guterres has made it very, very clear that this is a subject for COP28, and he’s awaiting the outcome for that, and so are we as contributors.

Steve Abel: Does he consider the repeal of the ban on oil and gas exploration to be a betrayal of our Pacific neighbours, who today called for a global phase-out of fossil fuels as the only way to save the Pacific from going to “their watery graves?”

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, we do not, and the reason is very simple. We are in the middle of a transition, and rather than bringing in a whole lot of inferior Indonesian coal, which the previous Government was doing, we’re looking for safer products to take us—[Interruption] They might think this is a laughing matter. I hear them scoffing over here—brought in all that Indonesian coal, trying to excuse themselves, and not even using New Zealand coal, which would have been a better, cleaner substitute. And here we go now into a transition where gas will be very critical and, when we get there, we’ll be able to face the Pacific nations and have done our duty to them as well.

Question No. 3—Acting Prime Minister

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

Hon Grant Robertson: That’s you.

The pause was because the same question was asked when it was question two, and did not the former Prime Minister see that? The answer is: ditto.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his Government’s commitment in the National - ACT coalition document to “amend the Overseas Investment Act 2005 to limit ministerial decision-making to national security concerns?”, and is he confident that all parties in the coalition will be supporting that amendment?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If that wasn’t the case, we would not have signed up to it.

Hon Grant Robertson: You did!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, I said if that was not the case, we would not have signed up to it. Words matter, Mr Robertson, not this gobbledygook. And the reason we signed up to it was because we could see under the previous administration they had no idea of the importance of international investment and the security of long-term policy which persuades people to come here.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Winston Peters in 2017 that “last year, 465,000 hectares of land was sold to foreigners. That’s up to four times on the year before. We in New Zealand First are going to stop land sales to foreigners and house sales to foreigners who don’t come and live here.”; if not, why not?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, can I just say that having heard that quote from one of the brightest guys that have ever come to this Parliament, it was voiced by not me—a previous Labour Party person said that; I was just borrowing his words. But the point of the matter is that we were looking to ensure that any offshore investment in this country had the national interest and economic benefit of New Zealand—like Ireland, like countries like Singapore—first in mind. And with that in mind, we welcome overseas investment.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So why is the Government repealing that test from the Act?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because like everything the Labour Party put its hands on, they didn’t interpret it properly.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his Government’s commitment to repeal the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Act, or does he agree with Shane Jones that the dual mandate brings us “into international best practice area. This is not a journey into the unknown; this is to link up progressive, far-sighted Government passing legislation that shows a great similarity to other reserve banks in their mandates, which have moved away from this bare, sparse, barren approach reflective of Don Brash’s stewardship of said bank.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’m certain that members and those in the gallery and those who are watching on TV are going to enjoy today’s conversation because they’re hearing so many wise words being repeated back to them—in this case, by the Opposition—with respect to National Party members. But we have to move on. The point is this—

Hon Grant Robertson: You’re out, Shane!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, we have to move on in this context. [Interruption] The Minister of Finance is wrestling with something very similar to what’s emerged in Australia lately, and that is inflation. Unlike what the previous finance Minister said, it is not foreign grown; it’s home grown, and massively so, because of their squanderous expenditure. That’s why we had to have a talk with the Governor of the Reserve Bank and get him to help us, both ways, to turn back the tide of inflation and give New Zealanders a chance to go into the future with the hope that we’ll have a better cost of living.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he therefore agree with Winston Peters that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Act “makes very important changes to the Reserve Bank Act that will significantly improve monetary policy as it relates to its impact on New Zealanders and the real economy”; if so, why is the Government repealing them?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because at the time that Winston Peters said that, he was having regard to an immigration policy which he had persuaded the then Government to adapt. It hardly got there, and when the handbrake went off, they ran amok and in the last year have brought in 118,000 immigrants—that’s a massive record for this country—with no infrastructure, no houses, no health, no nothing. And he now wants us to carry on with the same policy. No, it’s important that we address the circumstances we’re in right now, left by them.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was an interesting answer, but it wasn’t to the question. The question was about the Reserve Bank, not about what was talked about.

SPEAKER: Well, the question was actually about a quote from the Rt Hon Winston Peters from some time ago, and what the Acting Prime Minister thought of that quote. I think he answered it fairly concisely.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Acting Prime Minister agree with David Seymour that “you can’t trust Winston Peters, and a lot of things will be much, much harder than they otherwise would.”, and that Winston Peters is “just a muppet; the problem is he can’t work with anyone. The good news is he’s going down on flames; he’s yesterday’s man.”, and, if not, why not?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because even politically, as the Good Book says, nobody’s beyond redemption. Nobody is for not understanding how helpful a person can be. The people who should be the authority on that are sitting over there, because without our open-mindedness and liberality, no one would have ever heard of those people ever again. But they hardly got the job and they thought they got there by themselves. And when the handbrake left, what a mess they were. My evidence for that is in their first week of being a parliamentary Opposition, they asked 6,000 questions, which kind of suggests in 2020 to 2023, they had no answers.

Hon David Seymour: Has the Government ever reversed position—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hold on. Just a bit of order. The question’s being asked. The Hon David Seymour.

Hon David Seymour: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Has the Government ever reversed policy positions before, such as putting on a bonfire the RNZ-TVNZ merger—

SPEAKER: Yeah, nice question but out of order. So we’ll go now to question number four.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Point of order—better be one.

Hon David Seymour: It’s a question about Government policy. Surely I can ask about policies—

SPEAKER: No, you were citing a previous Government’s policy, and as you know, that’s not permissible. The member himself would have probably elicited that very ruling from a Speaker in the past.

Question No. 4—Transport

4. to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made on setting speed limits in New Zealand?

Today, I announced that the coalition Government is amending speed limit rules as part of our commitment to stop blanket speed limit reductions across the country. Kiwis have been faced with blanket speed limit reductions due to the previous Government’s speed limits rule, which fails to prioritise the economic impacts of slowing New Zealanders down and the views of road users and local communities alongside safety. Changes that I have announced today will remove deadlines for speed management plans and allow road-controlling authorities to stop blanket speed limit reductions on our roads while we write a new rule.

Tom Rutherford: Why have these changes been made?

SIMEON BROWN: These changes have been made to remove mandatory requirements set by the previous Government for road-controlling authorities to implement blanket speed limit reductions across the country. This coalition Government wants to see a transport system that boosts productivity and economic growth and allows New Zealanders to get where they want to go quickly and safely. Given our coalition Government has begun work on a new rule, I wanted to ensure road-controlling authorities avoid wasting public money—something the Opposition doesn’t care about—on finalising speed management plans only to have to revisit these plans under a new rule.

Tom Rutherford: What are the next steps for ending blanket speed limit reductions?

SIMEON BROWN: Very good question. The next step is to write a new rule that takes into consideration a wide range of factors including economic impacts, including travel times, and the views of road users and local communities alongside safety when setting speed limits. The National-ACT coalition agreement is committed to reversing blanket speed limit reductions where it is safe to do so, and this will come as welcome news to Kiwis around the country who have been faced with unnecessary blanket speed limit reductions under the previous Government. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute. Just to remind members that when questions are being asked the questioner is given the courtesy of a quiet House. Tom Rutherford.

Tom Rutherford: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What requirements will the Minister set for speed limits outside of schools?

SIMEON BROWN: This new rule that I will develop next year will require road-controlling authorities to implement variable speed limits on roads approaching schools during pick-up and drop-off times. This differs to the previous Government’s rule which resulted in blanket speed limit reductions to 30 kilometres per hour on many urban roads. Our coalition Government’s new rule will keep young New Zealanders safe while allowing Kiwis to get where they want to go quickly and safely.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by Nicola Willis’ statement, “Coming back to those extra source of revenue and other savings areas that will help us to fund the tax reduction, we have to remember that the changes to the smoke free legislation had a significant impact on the Government’s books—with about $1 billion there.”; if not, why not?

Yes.

Hon Grant Robertson: What is the source of her statement that there is a billion dollars a year impact on the Government’s books from undoing the smoke-free changes?

NICOLA WILLIS: The source was my answer to the question, and I continue to seek advice from officials on the spending and revenue implications of coalition commitments. Many of those details are Budget sensitive and I will make announcements about them in due course. As the member well knows, the statement he is referring to was made before I was sworn in as the Minister of Finance.

Hon Grant Robertson: Has she been advised that there is a billions of dollars a year impact on the Government’s books from undoing the smoke-free changes?

NICOLA WILLIS: As I say, I continue to seek advice from officials on the spending and revenue implications of coalition commitments. Many of those details are Budget sensitive and I will make announcements about them in due course.

Hon Grant Robertson: Is she ruling out using the revenue from winding back smoke-free initiatives to fund tax cuts?

NICOLA WILLIS: As the member knows, the Government has multiple sources of revenue and multiple spending commitments. It is this Government’s expectation that, just as was the case with his outgoing Government, tobacco will continue to be regulated and taxed. I note that during his time as finance Minister, he collected hundreds of millions of dollars in tobacco tax revenue, which was used for a wide range of purposes, including health and education services and Working for Families payments.

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t believe that question was addressed in that answer. I asked her whether she was ruling it out or not.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s often the case. The question is asked; an answer is given; the question is addressed.

Hon Grant Robertson: That’s very philosophical, Mr Speaker. Will she today rule out using the revenue gained from stopping the smoke-free changes for tax cuts in light of Sir Collin Tukuitonga describing doing so as “immoral”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Just as was the case with his Government, tax revenue from a range of sources will be used to support the activities of Government, including delivery of health services through to transfer payments and paying down debt. The member may not like the answers to my questions, but in Opposition he’s going to have to get used to it. And if I may say to the member, Opposition does appear to suit him.

Question No. 6—Justice

6. to the Minister of Justice: What is the Government’s position on sentencing, and why?

The coalition Government will take a tougher approach to sentencing law so serious offenders face real consequences for their crime as part of our plan to restore law and order. The coalition Government will prioritise public safety and victims through a series of measures we have agreed to implement. These include limiting massive discounts that weaken offenders’ final sentencing.

Cameron Brewer: What recent estimates has he seen about sentencing discounts?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I’ve been advised by officials that, for serious and violent offenders who pleaded guilty in 2021–22, their best estimate is that between 4,600 and 7,800 offenders were issued with a sentencing discount of greater than 40 percent.

Cameron Brewer: Why is the Government concerned about large sentencing discounts?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The strong feedback we’ve received across the country this year is that many New Zealanders are concerned with increased violent crime and want to see tougher consequences for serious violent and sexual offenders. Part of the role of sentencing is to denounce the criminal act and to recognise the harm caused to victims.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Does the Minister agree with the statement of Mr Penk of the Maxim Institute in an opinion piece in the New Zealand Herald that “Serious crimes deserve serious punishment, but three strikes is a blunt tool, capable of doing serious injustice”; if not, what advice has he received suggesting that a three-strikes regime is an effective sentencing approach?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, I haven’t seen that report, and I don’t agree with the sentiments there. I think three strikes did send a very clear signal to offenders that serious consequences for crime are required. And I think we’ve seen right throughout the last year, all around the communities, that New Zealanders have been concerned about the rise of crime under the previous Government.

Cameron Brewer: What progress has he made on implementing the Government’s plan to take a tougher approach to sentencing?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I’m pleased to inform the House that the coalition Government is prioritising its plan to restore law and order after six years of a Government being focused on reducing prison numbers without reducing crime. As well as the measures listed in our 100-day plan, we have committed to limiting total sentence discounts to 40 percent. This will ensure that serious offenders face real consequences for their crime.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying that the previous Government’s policy with respect to serious crime is going to be consigned back to the fishing industry, and that no longer for serious crime are we going to have catch and release?

SPEAKER: No, that’s not a reasonable question.

Question No. 7—Workplace Relations and Safety

7. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she accept the Treasury’s advice that the removal of fair pay agreements would disproportionately affect women, young people, Māori, and Pasifika; if not, why not?

I have not received any advice from Treasury, nor would I expect to.

Teanau Tuiono: Does she acknowledge that Christmas is a particularly stressful time for low-wage workers, and if so, why is her first action as Minister to remove workplace rights instead of improve them?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I acknowledge that many Kiwis are struggling with a cost of living crisis, and that’s why this Government is focused on improving productivity, reducing regulation, and getting rid of inflation so that Kiwis have more money for them and their families. But I want to acknowledge, when it comes to the fair pay agreements, nobody will be worse off with the removal of the fair pay agreements, because there have not been any fair pay agreements finalised.

Teanau Tuiono: Does she know how many workers are in sectors that have already instigated bargaining under the fair pay agreements framework, and, if not, why hasn’t she asked?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: There have been six fair pay agreements that are currently in a bargaining process. There are many New Zealanders who are being represented during that process. But, of course, I want to stress that not a single member involved in that process has a fair pay agreement, because not a single fair pay agreement has been finalised or signed. So no Kiwis are worse off.

Teanau Tuiono: Is she aware that bus drivers, cleaners, and early childhood education teachers earn at least 30 percent more pay in Australia, where sector-based bargaining is in place, and, if so, why should New Zealanders settle for less?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Workers in Australia, across industries, are better off. But that’s why this Government is focusing on making sure that we have a flexible labour market where we increase productivity, where we have businesses able to invest in their workers and invest in their businesses so workers and business are better off in our economy. That is the focus of our Government—to have a thriving economy where businesses have more money to pay their staff more.

Teanau Tuiono: Has she sought advice from officials on their preferred option of minimum employment standards to ensure there is no race to the bottom for low-wage workers, and, if not, is that because she is more interested in disproven right-wing ideology than in lifting wages?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I have not asked for any advice on alternative models. I am focused on delivering on this Government’s 100-day commitment to repeal the fair pay agreements. I look forward to working with the member, over the next three years, in this portfolio. Clearly, he’s interested in where we get to.

Question No. 8—Acting Prime Minister

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

In the same way as we answered for questions two and three, and again in question eight.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can he stand by his decision to use parliamentary urgency to push through legislation that will increase unemployment and insecure working conditions, while reducing wages, when people are trying to survive a cost of living crisis and put more kai on the table for Christmas?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because none of those statements in that so-called question are true. But they are relevant to the inheritance that this Government is, sadly, having to deal with now, and desperately before Christmas. And so if they’d paid more attention to the economy, rather than their woke, idiotic, left ideals—

SPEAKER: Yep, that’ll do.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —the workers of this country would have done far better. But it’s been my observation that the Greens—the economies that they admire are all in the Third World.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, through you, please, e te Pīka. There are a couple of ones I could bring in—perhaps Standing Order 121, personal reflections, or relevance to debate, Standing Order 112. I’ll leave that up to you, please.

SPEAKER: Yes, I know. But I could also rule out your first supplementary because it had suppositions in it. So we do try and get a degree of flow, if at all possible. But if you just restate your concerns, there, because I didn’t quite pick up the first one.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: My concerns are that the question, for the Deputy Prime Minister, wasn’t answered. And we also take exception with reference to “woke”. They’re personal reflections and they don’t belong in this House. Ko tōku whakaaro.

[That is my opinion.]

SPEAKER: Yes, there’s an awful lot of things that happen in this House that don’t really belong here, so I think we might just let that one slide. Do you have another supplementary at all?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Yes, I do. Thank you. What is his justification for repealing fair pay agreements and reducing the wages and conditions of Māori, Pasifika, young people, and women, as highlighted by his own Government’s leaked Cabinet paper?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, first of all, the integrity of the person answering this question on the subject of incomes and wages is that that threshold was set in the previous Government, not by Labour or the Greens but by New Zealand First. We want the working class of this country to get fairly paid, but we want a thing called productivity, and we know it’s only based on—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: It’s nonsense.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It’s not nonsense; it’s totally true and I can prove it. I can go back to 2017 and prove that categorically. We know what they campaigned on, so don’t come here today and try and tell us what you couldn’t do. At the end of the last three years, the workers of this country were dramatically let down by a failed economy, and our job is to turn that around. When we do so, we’ll uplift the wages of everybody in this country.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why is this Government planning to bring back 90-day trials, which will disproportionately punish tangata whenua, particularly rangatahi trying to get their foot in the door of the job market, when the research commissioned by the Treasury in 2016 found no evidence that trial periods increased firms’ overall hiring but instead just make it easier for firms to sack people without cause and with fewer dismissal costs?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The fact is—if anyone understands economics—a willing business and a willing worker are critical to employment. So whether it’s one month, two months, or three months, the fact of the matter is that the sound connection of those two will work. However, it is our intention as the Government, the moment someone is no longer able to work, to be on their case to get them back into work. So the consequences that that member’s talking about simply will not happen.

Hon Grant Robertson: Given the member’s pride in the minimum wage level, can he tell the House what the minimum wage is today?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Twenty-two dollars, $23, $22.70. $22.70—am I right? Yeah. [Interruption] No, I didn’t ask him—no, I was telling him. I said $22.70, knowing that I’d have an affirmation on my right from the Minister of Finance and the Leader of the House. Over here, we consult before we open our mouth.

Rawiri Waititi: He aha tō whakautu ki ngā rōpū e mahi ana mō ngā tamariki rawakore e karanga ana kia heke te whika o ngā tamariki rawakore mā te pene, mā te hiki i te whiwhinga pūtea, mā te ngāwari o te hoko kai, me te māuiui ārai?

[What is your response to the groups that are working for underprivileged children that are calling for a reduction in the number of underprivileged people by the pen, by raising wages, by making it easier to buy food and medication?]

SPEAKER: Is the member going to translate that or does he want to give the Minister a moment to receive that translation?

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, no. It’s only a question; it wasn’t any kind of a direction.

Rawiri Waititi: Absolutely not.

SPEAKER: OK. The question doesn’t need to be answered if the Minister—or the Prime Minister in this case—doesn’t feel like he wants to answer it. So does the member want to have another question?

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I guess, strictly speaking, your ruling is in order, but the practice in the time I’ve been in the House is that that is only done when a question is definitively out of order. We have a simultaneous translation system in the House to allow for members to answer. I wonder whether the right course of action here might be for Mr Waititi to repeat the question and the Acting Prime Minister to use his earpiece for the translation.

SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’ll answer the question.

SPEAKER: Oh, we’ve got an answer to the question.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I just wish that the courtesy of the House would apply so that the person asking the question, Mr Speaker—point of order—also had the comfort that the people who are watching on television also are part of this parliamentary debate. That’s what a democracy is called. It’s not just about 5 percent; it’s about the other 95 percent as well. It’s called “one people, one country”. Now, back to my point. If the member is concerned about the cost of living—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: You are—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no, no. On the marae, Megan, you keep quiet. You do. Willie knows that; he keeps quiet too. You don’t shout out like some bunch of clowns at university. That member’s asked a question; he deserves an answer and I’ll give it to him. If the member is concerned about the cost of living, then that is the greatest concern of this Government as well. When we went into the last election it was a massive issue, and just behind it was crime and lawlessness and Māori gangs, by the same way. But the cost of living can only be addressed by dealing with the causes of it, and the causes of it are the number one centre and focus of this Government going forward.

Hon Marama Davidson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Was that a point of order?

SPEAKER: No, that was an answer.

Hon Marama Davidson: He raised a point of order.

SPEAKER: No, no, I’m sorry—sorry, hang on. The Acting Prime Minister made it very clear: when I called him on a point of order he said, “No, it is an answer.”, and that’s how we progressed.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect to the House and to everyone watching, can we please seek clarity from the Speaker: are our questions in te reo no longer going to be answered by Ministers if they choose not to use the interpreter? That’s a really important subject that we’re looking for clarity on, please.

SPEAKER: I can’t answer that question for Ministers. The provision is made here for the translation. A Minister decides whether or not an answer can be given, and there are very clear outlines in the Standing Orders as to how they might make that decision.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The questions were for the Deputy Prime Minister, so I respect that Ministers may choose to do what they want to, but this is a question that would have gone to the Prime Minister, who isn’t here. So can I seek clarity again: is it the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister, or the Government that’s making this decision before us today? Because it is a big decision.

SPEAKER: No, it’s not; it’s straightforward—that all Ministers are part of the Government, including the Prime Minister, whether they’re Acting Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, or a Minister, and it is very clear under the Standing Orders how they may or may not answer the question.

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think, in fairness to the members asking the questions, sometimes the contemporaneous translation service doesn’t quite keep up with the asking of the question. So if I could say to members who wish to use te reo when asking questions: if they could perhaps indicate they’re about to do so, so that Ministers and Government respondents can get the translation device, the hearing equipment—the earpiece—so that they can actually listen to the question as it’s being asked. That will also help the translator do their job as well, so that we can have the expeditious exchange rather than what we just had.

SPEAKER: Next in line was Marama Davidson.

Hon Marama Davidson: Thank you, Mr Speaker—genuine and important conversation happening right here. Are we to believe, then, that it simply becomes a choice for a Minister to not answer a question, given that te reo is an official language, similar to New Zealand Sign Language? I understand the point that Mr Bishop is trying to make, that, yes, I’d too be open to the person asking the question to repeat the question so that we all have time to pick up our translators; agree. But are we to understand that it is simply a choice not to answer a question that is asked in an official language of this country?

SPEAKER: No, I think the member confuses two things: one is that there’s no question that te reo is an official language of this country. The fact that it is not a language that is shared with any fluency by a large number of members of the House is neither here nor there. The use of it is permitted. When it comes to the answering of a question, there’s nothing new in this; it has always been the case. In fact, Speakers’ ruling 199/4 makes it very clear the parameters for Ministers able to decide to not to answer a question.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The concern I have here is—you’re quite right to point out Speakers’ ruling 199/4, but also Speaker’s ruling 199/3 says that where a question is clear, there’s an expectation that Ministers answer it. It’s unfortunate how this has played out, however, where there were the words “point of order” used, it’s been ruled that it was a comment, but nevertheless the response that was part of that suggested that that Minister—perhaps others—will not answer questions if they are asked in te reo. Now, I’m not sure that it’s useful to continue that, so I wonder if you would reflect on it, perhaps watch it over again, because it would be an unfortunate reflection on the House if that was what is suggested, backed up by the suggestion that Ministers don’t have to answer. We shouldn’t go down that track.

SPEAKER: I take the member’s point on board and will, in fact, reflect a little further on it. It’s one of the penances you do in this job, reflecting on these things, so I’ll go ahead with that and come up with whatever it might be.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Just following on from the speaker who has resumed his seat, the reality is that there was a slight delay in the translation, reflective of the rudimentary nature of the Māori language and my ability to make it sound more sophisticated in English.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Hang on, we’re talking about his one.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to it?

SPEAKER: Well, I’m sure that’s a wonderful piece of—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to it?

SPEAKER: Yeah, I’m just congratulating him on his self-congratulations inside of the point of order. It was quite remarkable. The Hon Kieran McAnulty.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you, and I thank the Minister for his contribution. However, the issue that arose also from the suggestion from the Hon Grant Robertson that Rawiri Waititi be given the opportunity to repeat the question, that all members in the House therefore would have notice, and would be able to listen to the translation—however, the response was that Ministers don’t need to provide an answer, and now we are where we are.

SPEAKER: No, it was two parts to the point. I answered the first part. If the member wants to ask the question again, then I think we can progress by doing so.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. With respect, e te Pīka, just again to seek clarity from this party’s perspective, and the 70 percent of our population who are under the age of 40 who kōrero e te reo Māori, if we need to bring about a different practice, because this is a practice that we’ve had since we came in three years ago, Te Ururoa had—that we’ve had Te Pāti Māori enjoy, and other members across the House. Is the decision today—and it may need to go up for reflection for the Business Committee—that we need to indicate when we’re transferring language, or is there going to be a different set of protocols applied around—

SPEAKER: No, it’s not a decision that’s been made here at all. I’ve said that I will reflect on how we might make things work more smoothly, because you might notice that most of the people in this House are not reflective of that 70 percent—in age, if nothing else—so if we are to get answers to questions, we need to have something that works. That’s certainly my desire.

Hon Marama Davidson: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Marama Davidson—last point of order on this matter.

Hon Marama Davidson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s just in relation to Speaker’s rulings 199/3. It’s very clear that where the question is clear, there is an expectation that Ministers will answer it unless they consider it not to be in the public interest to do so. So I’m just seeking clarification on whether it is not in the public interest, or what is the ruling that you are calling to allow Ministers to have that choice?

SPEAKER: The ruling stands, but it is not for the Speaker to determine the interpretation of that ruling. Do we have another supplementary on this question?

Rawiri Waititi: Just for clarification, Mr Speaker, and your guidance: is it a repeat of the first question, or are you saying that I have to move on to the next question?

SPEAKER: No, look, I’ll tell you what: you make the choice. Is that OK? You can ask the first question again if you want, and that won’t cost you your subsequent supplementaries.

Rawiri Waititi: OK, first supplementary question: He aha tō whakautu ki ngā rōpū e mahi ana mō ngā tamariki rawakore e karanga ana kia heke te whika o ngā tamariki rawakore mā te pene, mā te hiki i te whiwhinga pūtea, mā te ngāwari o te hoko kai, me te māuiui ārai?

[What is your response to the groups that are working for underprivileged children that are calling for a reduction in the number of underprivileged people by the pen, by raising wages, by making it easier to buy food and medication?]

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If we’re going to help all those people who are working with the poor, then the first thing we should do is uplift our economy, and leave no one out. That is the purpose and the focus of this Government—that with the reforms that are going to go ahead, running a far more successful economy, and ensuring that no one is left out in housing, education, and health, and in terms of infrastructure access, then people will be uplifted; not like the disaster we had, where there were all those tens and tens and tens of thousands utterly forgotten, and the homeless went up by 35 percent.

Rawiri Waititi: He aha ngā kaupapa here a tēnei Kāwana mō te hiki i te whiwhinga pūtea kia ngāwari ai te utu mō ngā pire o te kai me te penihīni i mua i te Kirihimete?

[What are the policies of this Government for raising incomes to make it easier to pay for food and fuel bills before Christmas?]

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the first thing that is going to happen is that in parts of the economy the cost of petrol is going to go down, because the unfair charging that was imposed by a previous Government for no purpose while roading was a mess—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: We’ll hold you to that.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, you are going to hold us to that—you won’t have to hold us to that because unlike that member, we keep our promises. We don’t just make them and break them one after the other; we keep them. So those pricings should go down. It depends of course on all the international circumstances of supply chains to this country. And whilst I’m at it, they left this country’s fuel supply in a desperate circumstance when they wound back Marsden Point. We could be closed down within three days because of their short-sightedness, and Megan Woods is the person who never acted in international interests—just allowed the refinery that is so critical to this country in an emergency to be not operating any longer. And on the bigger question of costs of living before Christmas, well there’s only two weeks to go and we’re going to do the best we can to signal to the market and through the Groceries Commissioner a fairer pricing regime going forward.

Question No. 9—Police

9. to the Minister of Police: How many Constabulary Full Time Equivalents does Police expect to need to train each year for the next two years in order to maintain the 1 to 480 ratio, and will the Government’s commitment for “no fewer than 500 new frontline police within the first two years” be in addition to that?

I’m advised that the 1:480 ratio was never finalised, nor was it funded adequately by the previous Government.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will the number of constabulary fulltime-equivalents be 500 higher in two years’ time? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: The honourable member is asking a question. I didn’t even hear it. Can you do that again?

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will the number of constabulary fulltime-equivalents be 500 higher in two years’ time?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, in the police, numbers matter, and we’re committed to the coalition agreement that we have with New Zealand First. They delivered 1,800 additional police officers, and they’re now committed to an additional 500.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. We’ve had two questions to the Minister of Police and he hasn’t answered either of the questions. One of them was a primary question on notice. If you go and have a look at the primary question on notice, it was: “How many Constabulary Full Time Equivalents does Police expect to need to train each year for the next two years in order to maintain the 1 to 480 ratio,” and will he commit to there being “no fewer than 500 new frontline police within the first two years”. He didn’t answer that. That was a primary question on notice.

SPEAKER: No, he did. He actually said—

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: Well, just a minute. What he actually said was that he didn’t agree that the 1:480 ratio was ever funded.

Hon Chris Bishop: That’s right—which gets to the premise of the question.

SPEAKER: That would seem to be a reasonable answer. But, Mr Bishop?

Hon Chris Bishop: No, you made my point.

SPEAKER: Right.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question would have had to have been authenticated. Therefore, you have accepted that the question is valid; therefore, you should accept—you should require the Minister to provide an answer.

SPEAKER: Actually, no. Many times, there are questions that are asked in this House that the argument—the authentication has been run and not necessarily accepted by the Minister who’s answering the question. Now, what I do is irrelevant here. What he says is what the House gets as an answer in addressing a question. I’m sorry that that’s the way it is. It’s not changed from when other Ministers were on the other side of the House.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I recall a previous shadow Leader of the House asking a then Speaker whether or not a Minister could stand up and simply say “Rhubarb!” in answer to a question, because at that point the Speaker had ruled very similarly to what you have ruled today—that simply standing up and giving an answer was sufficient to address the question. So I once again raise the point of order that was raised by the then Hon Gerry Brownlee to the then Speaker—I can’t remember which Speaker it was at the time—as to whether or not that continues to apply.

SPEAKER: Well, I can assure you that the Hon Gerry Brownlee got a very unsatisfactory answer at that time, and I’m sorry I can’t give you a better one now.

Hon Grant Robertson: A further point of order—a further point of order.

SPEAKER: No, no, we’ve got David Seymour—point of order, David Seymour.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’ve got some sympathy for the point that Chris Hipkins is raising, but if he thought it was important, he should have raised it at the time, not one or two questions later.

SPEAKER: Thank you for that advice. The Hon Grant Robertson.

Hon Grant Robertson: Mr Speaker, acknowledging the ruling you’ve made, how was Mr Mitchell’s answer to the primary question an answer to the second leg of the primary question?

SPEAKER: Can you say that again. Sorry, I didn’t pick it up.

Hon Grant Robertson: Sorry. How was the answer that Mr Mitchell gave to the primary question an answer to the second leg of the question? The first leg of the question indeed was about the ratio. We may differ on whether or not that was addressed, but the second part of the question was most definitely not addressed.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the—

SPEAKER: Well, I thought he had actually said that he expected for that to be the number. But if I’m wrong—the Hon Chris Bishop? The Hon Ginny Andersen.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is he aware that 500 additional police officers over two years is not enough to even replace attrition, and is he comfortable overseeing a reduction in front-line numbers?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, the 500 is additional police officers. The challenge that we’ve got as an incoming Government is that it’s become very apparent to us that the police have got big challenges around recruiting. The recruiting pipeline, there’s pressure on that; we’ve got the Australians here recruiting our police officers; we’ve got a lot of officers coming up to retirement age. So she should understand that there’s challenges there, but the good news is the police remain committed to delivering an additional 500 police officers.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How can the New Zealand public have confidence in him if he expects to oversee an overall decrease in constabulary front-line numbers?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, they can have confidence in me and this Government because we take public safety seriously.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he expect New Zealanders to feel safer with fewer police on our streets, and, if not, what is he going to do about it?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, there’s not going to be fewer police on the streets, number one. Number two, police officers are actually going to be on the front line serving the communities that they work in, and, number three, you’ve got a serious Government now that actually takes public safety seriously, and the country’s going to be safer.

Question No. 10—Police

10. to the Minister of Police: What reports has he seen on policing in recent weeks?

Very good question. Police have done some outstanding work recently. This has included Operation Shadow in Hamilton City and the wider Waikato region, targeting illegal street racing offenders. Police have made 12 arrests, issued 220 infringement notices, and suspended three licences in response to road users blocking roads and exhibiting unsafe driving behaviours. There were seven arrests made for excessive breath alcohol, two for disorder, one for driving while suspended, one for a breach of home detention, and another had an existing warrant for arrest. I know and the police know that our communities are fed up with this behaviour, and I congratulate police for their outstanding work. Police said—and I quote—“We want to send a message to anyone involved in this type of behaviour that Police will work incredibly hard to hold you to account for any illegal activity”.

Rima Nakhle: What reports has he received from police on the policing of gangs?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I was very impressed by how police staff handled the recent gang tangi in Foxton. Police monitored the movements of gang members across the North Island roads and made it clear they had a strong presence and that law and order would be maintained. They made sure members of the public were able to go about their business freely and safely. I want to thank police for ensuring there were minimal disruptions to the public and that they were kept safe.

Rima Nakhle: Given his focus on public safety, is he concerned by any recent reports that he has seen on policing?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, I’m very concerned about a report that was released last week. The report was released by the Committee for Auckland with Deloitte and Auckland Unlimited. It says—and I quote—“Auckland ranks only 124th in safety, marking a three-year decline and positioning it among the lowest-performing peer cities on safety and [the] bottom within Australasia.” I am incredibly concerned that our biggest city and our economic centre is now one of the lowest ranked cities in the world for public safety. It is a stain on our nation and a terrible indictment on the record of the previous Government. This Government is committed to turning that around, supporting police, and improving public safety.

Question No. 11—Children

11. to the Minister for Children: What changes, if any, is the Government proposing to the legislation that governs Oranga Tamariki?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The coalition agreement between National and ACT commits to repealing section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act. Section 7AA was introduced as a way for Oranga Tamariki to honour the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. While it might’ve been well intentioned, the law has had some serious unintended consequences. That’s because section 7AA creates a fundamental conflict between protecting the best interests of children on one hand and honouring the Treaty in the other.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What impact will this change have on the services and supports Oranga Tamariki provides to Māori children and young people?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Nothing about this change will affect the support services and programmes that Oranga Tamariki provides for Māori. Repealing section 7AA is about ensuring the safety and wellbeing and the best interests of children and young people so that it’s the paramount consideration of Oranga Tamariki. The Oranga Tamariki Act already has provisions which protect the rights of whānau, hapū, and iwi, and I have also already made it very clear to officials that they should continue working with iwi and Māori organisations where this is achieving positive outcomes for young people.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Given the ACT coalition agreement requires the Government to assess the quality of new and existing legislation and regulation, will she commit to doing a regulatory impact assessment on the impacts of removing section 7AA on Māori children?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: As part of the coalition agreement between National and ACT, we have committed to repealing section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Point of order. The Minister did not answer the question.

SPEAKER: Well, we could have a repeat of the question, but I thought that she did actually say what the coalition was prepared to do in relation to the question. [Interruption] OK, well, ask the question again.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Sure. Given the ACT coalition agreement requires the Government to assess the quality of new and existing legislation and regulation, will she commit to doing a regulatory impact assessment on the impact of removing section 7AA on Māori children?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I repeat that as part of the coalition agreement between National and ACT, we’ve committed to repealing section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, and I wouldn’t expect to receive that advice.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Supplementary, Mr Speaker? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on; we’re out of control here. Is this a question or a point of order?

Kahurangi Carter: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: Please ask your supplementary question.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she stand by—

SPEAKER: Sorry, wait on; I’ve misunderstood. Point of order, the Hon Willow-Jean Prime.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, the Minister did not answer the question.

Hon David Seymour: Speaking to the point of order, I listened very carefully and the Minister said, “I would expect to receive that advice”, which I imagined was her reference to a regulatory impact statement. I recommend the member asking the question try listening carefully. She might learn something.

SPEAKER: Just in any event, I think the response, given it was a question about the coalition agreement, was probably reasonable. Can I call on Kahurangi Carter.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she stand by the Crown’s acknowledgment in the Wai 2915 inquiry that the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi require the Crown to take active and positive steps to address the significant disparity in the proportion of tamariki Māori in care, and, if so, how do the proposed changes to Oranga Tamariki legislation achieve this?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: As I have stated in previous answers, nothing about this change will affect the support services or the programmes that Oranga Tamariki provide for Māori. The Oranga Tamariki Act already has provisions that protect the rights of whānau, hapū, and iwi, and that will not change.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: The question is: what will the changes that the Minister is proposing mean for children who come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The dilemma Oranga Tamariki faces between protecting the best interests of children and honouring the Treaty is causing harm. Section 7AA has resulted in Māori children being removed from safe, loving homes they’ve lived in for years and being placed with family they may not know, because their parents or their caregivers may happen to be the wrong ethnicity. As Associate Professor Nicola Atwell of Otago University says, section 7AA has led to practice which is ideologically driven and neither child centred nor trauma informed. Ethnicity should not be a factor in deciding what is in the best interests of at-risk children.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What other changes is the Government proposing for Oranga Tamariki?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I believe there must be a greater level of public accountability within Oranga Tamariki for its performance. We need to put an end to finger-pointing whenever Oranga Tamariki fails. Better performance must start with accountable governance. Greater accountability will include creating a truly independent monitoring and oversight agency for Oranga Tamariki and will also improve attractiveness of caregiving to give caregivers the right to make everyday decisions about a child’s life by default. In too many cases, the State care system is failing children and young people, and as the Minister for Children I’m committed to creating a system focused first and foremost on a child’s safety. We need to eliminate the “sweep it under the rug” attitude which has been pervasive in the State care system.

SPEAKER: A very long answer.

Question No. 12—Workplace Relations and Safety

12. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she stand by her recent statements in relation to fair pay agreements?

Yes, especially regarding my comments that fair pay agreements (FPAs) would reduce flexibility, choice, and agility in workplaces; also, that to lift productivity and drive economic growth there needs to be flexible workplaces where employers and employees can agree on terms that suit their unique situations.

Camilla Belich: In response to an earlier question, she stated that she hadn’t received any advice from the Treasury. Does she accept that she received advice from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) that the removal of fair pay agreements would disproportionately affect women, young people, Māori, and Pasifika?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I have not asked for advice on the costs and benefits of repealing the fair pay agreements from MBIE. What I have received is a cover sheet to MBIE’s 2021 regulatory impact statement (RIS), which updates the sections of that RIS to reflect the proposal which is to return the fair pay agreement system to the status quo. To be clear, the regulatory impact statement from MBIE from 2021 recommended against introducing a fair pay agreement system.

Camilla Belich: Does she accept that the regulatory impact statement cover sheet that she received from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on 28 November 2023 states that the removal of fair pay agreements would disproportionately affect women, young people, Māori, and Pasifika?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: What I accept is that the statement within the cover sheet to the regulatory impact statement has been taken out of a wider context where it suggests that the benefits of the fair pay agreements that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment mentioned only apply to employees within the scope of a fair pay agreement. To be clear, there have not been any fair pay agreements finalised, so no one is worse off.

Camilla Belich: Does the Minister accept that on paragraph 13 of that RIS, it clearly states that depending on the sector and occupations where FPAs are concluded, they could disproportionately benefit some population groups covered, including women, young people, Māori, and Pacific peoples?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: What I acknowledge is that that statement has been taken out of the wider context, which is that this cover sheet is an update to the regulatory impact statement which was against the fair pay agreement. What the statement suggests is that we’re taking away the fair pay agreement bargaining process. There have not been any fair pay agreements signed, and so therefore anybody who was worse off is only in theory worse off, because there have not been any fair pay agreements signed. What this Government is committed to doing is making sure that we have a Government that benefits business and benefits workers. The best way to improve the conditions of all Kiwi workers is to make sure that we have high productivity. We reduce regulation—

SPEAKER: That’s good—that’s good. The Hon Chris Bishop.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Minister confirm that the 2021 regulatory impact statement she’s referring to recommended against the introduction of a fair pay regime, and, if so, why?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I can. MBIE, in 2021, recommended against a fair pay agreement system.

Camilla Belich: The regulatory impact statement cover sheet, which she’s referred to in her previous answer, states—just to be clear on what we’re talking about here—in response to that question, she stated that in theory people covered by fair pay agreements would be—[Interruption] this is a question—

SPEAKER: Sorry, there is silence while members are asking a question.

Hon Chris Bishop: It’s not a question; that’s the issue.

SPEAKER: That might be the case, but it’s a rule of the House that when people are asking questions they get silence of the House. You got a point of order, the Rt Hon Winston Peters?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, people are expected to turn up here ready to go and prepared. That was not a question. It didn’t show any sign of becoming one.

SPEAKER: I don’t—well, yeah, OK.

Hon Grant Robertson: Well, Mr Speaker, throughout the course of today we’ve had answers that have been completely out of order. You’ve said you want things to flow, and I think points of order such as the one taken by the Rt Hon Winston Peters go against your desire for things to flow. If we want it to just be a complete free-for-all, by all means, Mr Speaker. But, you know, I thought you were playing the advantage on both sides there.

SPEAKER: Well, the mere fact that you have just given me that advice has sort of accounted to where we might have got to. You were very quick on your feet.

Camilla Belich: Does she accept, then, that if the fair pay agreements legislation which she intends to repeal was not repealed, in theory it would benefit Māori, Pacific, young people, poorer workers?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: No, because this Government believes that the fair pay agreement system would have made vulnerable workers worse off. This is because of disemployment effects where businesses who could not stomach the added cost to their businesses lay off workers or close up entirely or don’t offer any more jobs. The best way to help vulnerable workers is to have a flexible labour market that works for all New Zealanders, where every business has the opportunity to employ more staff and have more money to pay their staff more.