Oral Questions

1. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the Paris Agreement 2030 emissions reduction targets, “We are going to meet our commitments and obligations”, or does he agree with his Minister for Resources, who said yesterday that “We are not going to meet the 2030 dreamy, fairy-tale, aspirational figures”?

Yes, I stand by my statement. The Government is going to meet its obligations and commitments that it’s made on climate change, and I also stand by the statement from the Minister of Resources as well, because he was clearly talking about the previous Government’s 100 percent renewable electricity target, which is, actually, a fairy tale and is counter-productive.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does his Government have any targets or policies to reduce fossil fuel use across the energy and transport industry to replace the 2030 renewable electricity target, and, if not, why not?

Hon Chris Bishop: It’s called electrifying New Zealand.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah, we’re going to actually electrify New Zealand by doubling the amount of renewable electricity that’s in New Zealand so we can make the transition well and make our sectors move to clean, green energy.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he concerned about the growing contradiction, under this Government, between New Zealand’s international and climate commitments and domestic plans which undermine efforts to reduce emissions, such as reopening oil and gas drilling and cancelling the Clean Car Discount?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely not. We are deeply committed to delivering on our climate goals and commitments. The way we go about doing that may be different from the previous Government, but don’t misunderstand our commitment to the targets and goals.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his statement, “There is no reason for climate deniers and climate minimalists in the 21st century”, and, if so, is he embarrassed by the statements of the Minister of Resources that “One of the great lies about climate change is that, yes, apparently, it’s a crisis.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Climate change is a crisis.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with the Climate Change Commission that “Weakening action on climate policy during times of adverse economic conditions—which climate change is only likely to exacerbate—is not sustainable and will greatly compromise [Aotearoa New Zealand’s] ability to meet [emissions budgets and the 2050 target].”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’re not weakening our actions on climate change; we’re just going about it a different way.

Chlöe Swarbrick: That’s a demonstrable lie.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will he or will he not instruct all Ministers to implement the commission’s advice—

Hon David Seymour: Point of order. I apologise for interrupting the member. You may not have heard, but, after the Prime Minister resumed her seat, I heard Chlöe Swarbrick say, “That’s a demonstrable lie.” That’s quite a serious accusation to make of any member, and I wonder what your view is and how you’re going to enforce such rules?

SPEAKER: Look, I did not hear it from up here. If the member made a statement like that, she may consider withdrawing and apologising.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Speaking to the point of order, my point was that it is demonstrable.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. I think the member should be given a chance to withdraw that, because it may well be on the Hansard audio record, and, if that’s the case, then we know where this goes after that.

Hon Marama Davidson: Speaking to the point of order, there are all sorts of statements—

SPEAKER: Start again.

Hon Marama Davidson: —on the Hansard record, including from that very Minister.

SPEAKER: Excuse me! Start again. I’ll call the member so the whole House can hear her. The Hon Marama Davidson speaking to the point of order.

Hon Marama Davidson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I apologise. There are a whole range of statements on the Hansard record, and I’m happy to accept clarity for what will and will be struck off Hansard records. Thank you.

SPEAKER: That wasn’t the point being made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. However, I’ve got advice here. Speakers’ ruling 48/1: saying a member is lying is always out of order. So if that is what the member said and does not want to withdraw it, then that does have other consequences.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Speaking to the point of order, I was speaking to the content of the policies, as put forward by this Government, and the fact that the content of those policies is a lie. If the inference is that, therefore, the Minister or the Prime Minister is a liar, that wasn’t the statement that I was making, but I was pointing out that it is demonstrable on the evidence that the undertakings from this Government are completely contrary to our climate commitments.

SPEAKER: OK, I think we’ll move on. That is an opinion; others will make a judgment on whatever the Hansard record might eventually show.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will he or will he not instruct all Ministers to implement the commission’s advice in their work programmes?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our Government’s committed to delivering on climate change, and our Ministers are making sure that they can do that through their respective portfolios.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Can he name one decision that his Government has taken to date that will materially reduce New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions; if so, what is it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It’s our plan to actually increase and double the amount of renewable electricity.

SPEAKER: We come now to—[Interruption] Yeah, good—nice argument across the House.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, and particularly the Government’s statement that we will be a Government that gets things done for New Zealand. That starts with our 100-day plan, which includes a number of changes to make it easier for Kiwis to be able to get ahead, make our communities safer, and deliver better health and education for our young people. This is a Government that’s got a mandate for change, and its focus is on delivery for New Zealanders, unlike the previous Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his Government’s commitment in the National-ACT agreement to “Review whether the Firearms Registry is effectively improving public safety,”, or does he agree with Mark Mitchell that the registry was justified, as the country, without a doubt, has an issue with licensed firearm holders going in and buying—on order—for people who don’t have licences, mostly gang members and organised crime?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We agree with the decision to review the gun register.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because we want to make sure that it is working effectively and delivering public safety.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has he told Mark Mitchell he’s wrong?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: He’s not wrong. We support the gun register. We want to make a review to make sure that it’s working effectively.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with David Seymour that ACT’s proposal to have a debate and referendum on the Treaty—“you know, the coalition Government has agreed to go halfway with that, and then re-evaluate and perhaps proceed further, and it will actually enhance the mana of the Treaty”—or does he agree with Christopher Luxon that “we will pursue a Treaty Principles Bill to select committee, and that is as far as it will go.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The position of the Government is that we will support the bill until select committee, through its first reading, and that’s as far the comment goes at this stage.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What’s the point of sending a bill to a select committee that the Government intends to vote down, other than to waste thousands of hours of people’s time and a lot of taxpayers’ money?

Hon Shane Jones: Democracy.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It’s a democracy. And as part of our coalition agreement with National and ACT, that is our commitment that we have made.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is this the first example of the Government’s reduction in waste—that they’re going to vote in favour of a bill going to select committee that they have no intention of passing into law?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I think it’s a bit rich for that member to talk about wasteful Government spending. He led a Government that undertook so much wasteful Government spending, it drove domestic inflation, drove interest rates up, slowed our economic growth up, and put at risk employment. So, no disrespect, not taking any lectures from that member.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: What reports has she received on the challenge of inflation in New Zealand?

SPEAKER: Just before the member answers, we need to have—I know that was a loud burst; it’s a technical issue—a bit of quiet while people are asking questions.

The reports I have received confirm that inflation remains a major challenge in New Zealand, at a rate of 5.6 percent, even while inflation falls rapidly overseas. The Reserve Bank has said in their most recent Monetary Policy Statement that non-tradable inflation is easing only gradually, highlighting the challenge facing the Government and the Reserve Bank as we look to win the fight on inflation in coming months. I want to reassure New Zealanders who are struggling with the cost of living that beating inflation is this Government’s top priority. Our first act in Parliament was to introduce and progress legislation returning the Reserve Bank to a single mandate, ensuring New Zealanders can have confidence that our commitment to beating inflation is rock solid.

Catherine Wedd: How does inflation in New Zealand compare to other countries overseas?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, while inflation remains very high at home, at 5.6 percent, other countries offshore are already making significant progress. Inflation in the United States fell to just 3.1 percent overnight.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How’s the UK going?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Inflation in Canada is also down at 3.1 percent. Mr Hipkins asks what the inflation rate is in the UK, and I can inform him it is down at 4.6 percent, so he managed to do an even worse job than the UK.

Catherine Wedd: What factors have led domestic inflation to remain so high?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: According to the OECD’s latest economic outlook, “Up until late 2023, too much weight has been put on monetary policy to reduce inflation, requiring higher interest rates”, and that “The fiscal deficit is contributing to this imbalance.” The incoming Government will not be able to fix in one Budget an imbalance of spending that has built up over six years. However, the outgoing Government has left us with a forecast deficit this year of $11.4 billion—and that’s in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update. But we are already taking early action, as part of the 100-day plan, to end wasteful spending, and I look forward to giving many speeches on that.

Catherine Wedd: What next steps is the Government taking to support New Zealanders with the cost of living crisis?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We know that New Zealanders are struggling, which is why the Government is committed to delivering fiscally neutral tax relief next year. After years of watching their money squandered on wasteful projects like Lake Onslow, light rail, the Auckland bike bridge project that cost millions and went nowhere, like the TVNZ-RNZ merger, the jobs tax, the income insurance scheme, and all of the other items in the policy bonfire, our Government is committed to reducing wasteful spending and delivering income tax relief for New Zealanders.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister of Finance as to whether or not, in her previous answer, that is the greatest disparity ever between a forecast surplus and an actual deficit?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: What I would also highlight—the member is correct to highlight—

Hon Grant Robertson: Answer the question.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the Deputy Prime Minister is correct to highlight that the gulf between the rhetoric of a Government and the actual numbers it delivered—I don’t think has ever been wider. Because we had a finance Minister who repeatedly promised a return to surplus, and yet every time he arose to announce his next Budget, the surplus would mysteriously slip, slip, slip away.

Question No. 4—Children

Tēnā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā tātou e te Whare. Kāore au i te pātai i tēnei pātai i roto i te reo Māori.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, greetings to all of us in the House. I will not ask this question in the Māori language.]

4. to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by her statement on the Government’s policy to remove section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, “Nothing about this change will affect the support services and programmes that Oranga Tamariki provides for Māori”; if not, why not?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, could we possibly just have the question? But if it is to be in Māori, can we have it in Māori—but not both?

SPEAKER: Very good. We’ll have the answer from the Hon Karen Chhour.

Yes.

Rawiri Waititi: How can she stand by that statement when Oranga Tamariki’s own public website states that section 7AA enables them to “develop strategic partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations, including iwi authorities”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: By removing section 7AA, that will not remove the ability for the 10 strategic partnerships that are currently in place and work to be made on other strategic partnerships. I have instructed officials to continue working with iwi, hapū, and whānau when this is to the benefit of our children.

Rawiri Waititi: How can she stand by that statement when Oranga Tamariki also spell out that the section ensures “that policies, practices and services have regard to mana tamaiti, whakapapa and whanaungatanga”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Nothing in removing section 7AA will remove that. There are already existing provisions within the Act that protect the rights of whānau, hapū, and iwi. I refer the member to sections 4, 5, and 13 of the Oranga Tamariki Act.

Rawiri Waititi: What is her response to iwi leaders appalled by this policy, including Waikato-Tainui chairperson Tukoroirangi Morgan, who has said that taking the section would sever iwi partnerships successfully reconnecting tamariki Māori with their whakapapa?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I respect what that member has to say, but nothing—by removing that Act—will make that happen. The only people implying that these partnerships will be affected are those from across the House, and I have instructed officials that they should continue working with iwi and Māori organisations where this is achieving positive outcomes for young people.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does she agree with Chief Children’s Commissioner, Dr Claire Achmad, who said that section 7AA “makes clear the right of mokopuna Māori be connected with and know their whakapapa. That means wherever they can be safe being in the care of their whānau, hapū and iwi.”, and, if not, why not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The Oranga Tamariki Act already has provisions which protect the rights of whānau, hapū, and iwi. I again refer the member to sections 4, 5, and 13 of the Oranga Tamariki Act.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can she justify this policy to whānau, hapū, and iwi Māori when she knows full well that this will lead to many more tamariki Māori being severed from whakapapa?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I actually really disagree with that sentiment. Nothing with removing section 7AA from the Act removes the ability for young people to connect with their whakapapa.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is she comfortable with her legacy as Minister for Children being the person who presided over another stolen generation of indigenous children?

SPEAKER: The Minister may answer, but that question is pretty wide of the mark and not—

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I am proud to stand here as the Minister for Children that represents a Government that is committed to making sure that every child in New Zealand wakes up knowing today is going to be a better day.

Question No. 5—Regional Development

5. to the Minister for Regional Development: What updates can he provide of any regional development investments?

It’s my pleasure to announce to the House that as a consequence of a far-sighted politician six years ago making an investment, on behalf of the Government, in the Snowy River goldmine, the entirety of the $15 million has been paid back. This goldmine in Te Tai Poutini, the West Coast, enjoyed the upside of employing 50 people. Another 140 are on the way as they seek to raise $100 million—a great example of central government collaborating with industry in regional New Zealand.

Jenny Marcroft: Is he confident that seabed mining will feature in regional development investments?

Hon SHANE JONES: Yes. Seabed mining has a legitimate place in New Zealand’s regional economy. Sadly, a number of pixie-like hapū in Taranaki have sought to undermine this legitimate industry. I can assure you, though, that the Environmental Protection Authority legislation, if it needs to be changed to give certainty to investors—and we will not have tikanga Māori mangled and distorted 37 kilometres off the coast of Taranaki.

SPEAKER: Just before the member speaks, I’ll just say that we can’t, on one hand, demand a degree of decorum in the House and then bring in expressive language like that that can be a little inflammatory. The member’s very good at it, there’s no question about that—most entertaining but not particularly helpful.

Jenny Marcroft: How will oil and gas investments located in regional New Zealand feature in regional development?

Hon SHANE JONES: I brought this document here with me today, which contains an assertion, aspirational in nature, that, by 2030, all sources of energy to maintain security of supply in regional New Zealand will be renewable. Oil and gas will play a key role, and when that legislation is changed in regional New Zealand, it will offer certainty to the investment community. And then the grown-ups will ensure that there is security and manageable risk in our energy sector, unlike what we hear from the other side of the House. I look forward to providing that educational service to other members of Parliament.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. to the Minister of Finance: What is the total cost to the Government of the “tax relief” outlined in the Policy Programme of the Government as expressed in the coalition agreements?

The Government stands by the commitments set out in our coalition agreements. The advice I have received on the potential fiscal impact of tax relief is obviously Budget sensitive, and I look forward to updating the House on details in due course.

Hon Grant Robertson: Does she stand by the answers she’s given in this House that she does not know what specific revenue initiatives will fund the tax relief programme?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I would have to see that comment in context to believe it is being fairly represented in the House.

Hon Grant Robertson: How can she say that she will deliver fiscally neutral tax relief, when she doesn’t know how much it’s going to cost?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because I do know how much it’s going to cost, but I am not sharing with that member the information when it is Budget sensitive. I can also be confident about delivering tax relief, because, unlike the member opposite, I actually believe New Zealanders deserve to keep more of what they earn, and they deserve a Government that won’t waste their hard-earned wages on boondoggles, like he did.

Hon Grant Robertson: Why has the member changed her position on the app tax?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am not responsible for commitments made in party manifestos.

Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that the National Party’s position before the election was to reverse the app tax, and it is now the position of a National-led Government that it will keep the app tax in place?

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you know what I’m going to say: the Minister is not responsible for statements made by political parties before elections.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Just like GST.

SPEAKER: Yeah—good. The member might like to try another way of asking the question.

Hon Grant Robertson: Does she agree with Nicola Willis, the National Party finance spokesperson, who said that the app tax was an outrage and should be reversed?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I do agree with Nicola Willis. And what I also agree with Nicola Willis on is that it is time for a Government that stops tax grabbing and should start by prioritising income tax relief for working people. We have been left with fiscal constraints, by the previous Government, that are extreme, and, in that context, our priority must be letting New Zealanders keep more of what they earn with personal income tax relief.

Hon Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, that she agrees that the app tax was outrageous and should be reversed—she agrees with Nicola Willis on that—how can she continue to be the Minister of Finance in a Government that is now imposing the app tax?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I agreed with the statements of Nicola Willis in the context in which they were given. As the Minister of Finance, I am responsible for the policy commitments of our Government and its decisions.

Question No. 7—Transport

7. to the Minister of Transport: What actions is he taking to repeal the Clean Car Discount scheme by 31 December?

Our coalition Government committed to axing the ute tax and Clean Car Discount scheme by 31 December, providing assurance to hard-working New Zealanders that they can purchase the vehicles that they need without being unfairly penalised; and ending what is a fiscally unsustainable scheme. Yesterday, I introduced legislation to the House to axe the ute tax by 31 December and deliver on this commitment. This means that charges will end for vehicles after 11.59 p.m. on 31 December 2023, and buyers of low-emitting vehicles will no longer be able to apply for rebates.

Ryan Hamilton: Why are these actions being taken? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Stop there. Sorry. Far too much talk while people are asking a question. Please ask the question again.

Ryan Hamilton: Why are these actions being taken?

SIMEON BROWN: A very good question. The previous Government promised the scheme would be “fiscally neutral”, but, as at 30 November, $579 million has been paid out in rebates and $13.5 million has been spent on administration costs, while only $290 million has been received in charges. This has left taxpayers footing the bill for an eye-watering $302.5 million deficit.

Ryan Hamilton: What subsidies have been paid out under the scheme with this $302.5 million deficit?

SIMEON BROWN: Well, the $302.5 million deficit hitting taxpayers’ pockets has contributed to thousands of subsidies to high-end vehicles costing $70,000 or more. In the last 18 months alone, over $122 million has been paid out to those buying high-end vehicles under this scheme. Our Government does not believe that taxpayers should be subsidising those who can already afford to purchase these vehicles.

Ryan Hamilton: What advice has he seen on the financial sustainability of the scheme?

SIMEON BROWN: Well, advice I have received shows the Clean Car Discount scheme will not survive past mid-2024 without substantial changes to how it operates. Continuing the scheme would likely require a combination of lowering and restricting rebates to electric vehicles; increasing charges and applying them to all petrol, diesel, and some hybrids; or providing more Crown funding. This will only worsen equity issues and could result in taxpayers footing an even bigger bill.

Question No. 8—Children

8. to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Yes.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: The Minister said that section 7AA creates a fundamental conflict between protecting the best interests of children, on the one hand, and honouring the Treaty, on the other; what is the conflict?

KAREN CHHOUR: From what I’ve been hearing from community organisations and groups, and also hearing from news articles around the issues with section 7AA, the intent behind honouring what the Treaty means is not clear. It depends on how someone interprets what honouring the Treaty means. And so that creates a conflict, because, when decisions are being made, the decisions may vary on the interpretation of what honouring the Treaty means.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she still maintain there is a conflict, when section 4A says, “In all matters relating to the administration or application of this Act (other than Parts 4 and 5 and sections 351 to 360), the well-being and best interests of the child or young person are the first and paramount consideration, having regard to the principles set out in sections 5 and 13”?

KAREN CHHOUR: This change is about helping provide clarity of focus to social workers to any decisions they make around removals and placements, and there are already provisions in the Act that provide rights to whānau, hapū and iwi. I refer this member to sections 4, 5, and 13 of the Oranga Tamariki Act.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Can the Minister confirm that before the introduction of the bill, she will meet with the strategic Māori partners: Eastern Bay of Plenty Iwi Provider Alliance, Māori Women’s Welfare League partnership, Ngāti Kahungunu partnership, Ngāi Tahu partnership, Waikato-Tainui partnership, Tūhoe partnership, Ngāpuhi partnership, Ngāti Toa Rangatira and Te Āti Awa partnership, and Te Kahu Oranga partnership?

KAREN CHHOUR: I have asked for advice on how I can organise to meet with these groups that have committed partnership agreements, and if my calendar has the space to do this, I will do so.

SPEAKER: Can I just say, no noise over here either [Gestures to Government side] when there is a question being asked.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: In light of her response to question No. 4, that she is proud, how can she possibly feel proud to condemn future generations of Māori tamariki to be alienated from their whakapapa, language, and culture?

SPEAKER: I think the Minister might like to make an attempt to answer that question—you’re making a big supposition there which is a little outside of it. Let’s see what we can get.

KAREN CHHOUR: I am very proud to stand here and be the Minister for Children and to make sure that I am putting things in place to make the lives of children in New Zealand better. Nothing I have ever said or done implies that I want to destroy Māori heritage, whakapapa, or anything to do with Māori ethnicity.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister to be careful of when she sees these Māori groups, because the last Minister in her place who did that ended up voting for another political party, not Labour.

SPEAKER: Very good. Thank you for the advice—I’m sure the whole House will take that on board.

Question No. 9—Education

9. to the Minister of Education: What is the Government doing to improve literacy and numeracy achievement in New Zealand?

Yesterday, the Education Bulletin was sent out to the education sector, indicating the Government’s intention to implement the hour a day policy into New Zealand schools. Improving outcomes in reading, writing, and maths is a priority for this Government, so I have asked schools with students in years 0 to 8 to spend an average of an hour a day teaching reading, writing, and maths.

Carl Bates: Why is it important that children spend an hour a day on each of these subjects?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Reading, writing, and maths are fundamental skills that unlock the rest of the curriculum. In a 2021 report into the teaching of mathematics in New Zealand, the Royal Society found significant variation amongst schools in terms of the amount of time devoted to teaching maths, with some teachers scheduling maths for as much as seven hours a week, while others teach it for fewer than three. It was their recommendation, in that report, to introduce an hour a day of mathematics. The previous Government ignored those recommendations. But this Government will be introducing an hour a day to see all children, across New Zealand, getting consistent, high-quality education that they deserve, and this is just the first step.

Carl Bates: What results has the Minister seen to indicate that this change is necessary?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The 2022 Programme for International Student Assessment results show a significant decline in the performance of 15-year-old students in maths, compared to 2018, and confirms the long-term trend of declining achievement in core subjects since 2000. The 2022 national monitoring study showed that only 41.5 percent of our year 8s were at curriculum for maths after eight years of schooling. These results show us that our education system has continued to deliver poor outcomes for learners. But our Government has a plan to turn this around. Our Teaching the Basics Brilliantly policy, which includes an hour a day, builds an important foundation to ensure young people receive the high-quality education they deserve and allows them to live the life that they want.

Hon Jan Tinetti: How does the Minister know how frequently reading, writing, and maths is currently being taught in classrooms, given the acknowledgment, in the Ministry of Education bulletin to school principals yesterday, that many of them were already doing that and little change was needed?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: If the member opposite had been listening to my previous answer, she would have heard the fact that the Government’s own report that they commissioned in 2021 stated that there was a wide variation between schools in the teaching of mathematics, with some only teaching it for three hours a day. We acknowledge that many schools already do this, but there is some variability, and we want to make sure it is consistent across the sector. And I suggest that the member, next time, listens more carefully to my answers.

Carl Bates: What will an hour a day look like in practice in the classroom?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I said in the Education Bulletin that went out this week, we know that many schools already do an hour a day of reading, writing, and maths. But it is our intention to ensure that this great practice is happening consistently across the sector in New Zealand. We expect that these hours take place across the entire school day and throughout the curriculum. This will include explicit teaching, collaborative learning, activities, games, and all the other best-practice techniques teachers use to engage and develop young people’s skills. But, rest assured, it is our expectation that our young people are getting access to an hour of reading, writing, and mathematics every day, across the whole country, in every classroom.

Question No. 10—Transport

10. to the Minister of Transport: What communication, if any, has he had with the Ministry of Transport and Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency regarding the role transport will play in reducing climate emissions?

The Ministry of Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency’s briefings to the incoming Minister covered key transport issues, including the role transport can play in the reduction of emissions.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Has he instructed the leadership of Waka Kotahi and the Ministry of Transport that transport will have little to no role in emissions reduction this term?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I have written to the New Zealand Transport Agency to ask them to stop work on the prior Government’s vehicle kilometres travelled reduction work programme, which was simply writing reports rather than actually delivering infrastructure. Our approach will be actually delivering infrastructure, while the last Government was all about writing reports.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order. I appreciate the answer. I did ask a very specific question about whether he had spoken to the leadership of the transport agency and the Ministry of Transport and said that transport will have little to no role in emissions reduction.

SPEAKER: Well, it’s a bit novel to appreciate the answer and then criticise it, but the Hon Simeon Brown may like to repeat what he’s already said.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yeah, as I said in my answer, I have written to the chair of the New Zealand Transport Agency in relation to the work around vehicle kilometres travelled, which was funded from the Climate Emergency Response Fund, and as I mentioned earlier—

SPEAKER: Good, that’s it—that clarifies that.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is he committed to achieving the transport emissions reductions targets, and, if so, how does he intend to achieve them?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes, and I have received advice that transport is expected to achieve the first emissions budget period, 2022-2025.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he accept the advice from the Climate Change Commission on transport emissions that the need for decisive Government action is immediate, and, if not, why not?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I’ve asked for advice in relation to the climate report which was released yesterday, but I would say that our Government’s approach will be actually on building infrastructure rather than wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on endless reports, business cases, and actually not delivering anything, which was the past Government’s approach.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he accept—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. Mr Speaker, the Minister referred to the briefing to the incoming Minister in his response to the primary question. It’s understood that, in that case, he will be required to table the document. Will the Minister be tabling that document?

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order, well, that would be true if the Minister was quoting from it, which he wasn’t.

SPEAKER: I think that is the rule. So, the Hon Julie Anne Genter, you’ve got another question.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he accept the advice from the Climate Change Commission, released yesterday, in relation to low-emissions and zero-emissions vehicles, that “Supports to address the upfront cost barrier are especially important.”, and, if so, will he implement a price incentive for zero-emissions vehicles to replace the Clean Car Discount?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: No, we’re not going to continue to waste hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to subsidise wealthy New Zealanders to be able to buy electric vehicles they can already purchase. Instead, we will invest in supercharging the electric vehicle charging network, which is a priority under this Government.

Question No. 11—Police

11. to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by the statement made by the National Party Police Spokesman, the Hon Mark Mitchell, that “an additional 300 police officers over four years … takes us from a ratio of 480 to 470 to 1”; if so, why?

Point of order. Sorry, to the member—I should have stopped her before she asked her question. We’re surprised, on the Government benches, that this question has been accepted as a primary question. The Minister is not responsible—is not able to stand by statements made by National Party spokespeople. I can’t remember the exact question earlier on, but you yourself accepted, in response to a previous supplementary and point of order exchange, that Ministers are responsible for statements as Ministers, and they’re not able to stand by statements; I think it was the question of Mr Robertson and the Minister of Finance around political party statements. So we are slightly surprised that this question was accepted as a primary question on notice. It could have been worded differently, but, in the way it’s worded currently, the Minister is being asked to stand behind a statement made by a political party spokesperson.

Speaking to the point of order?

SPEAKER: OK, away you go.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: This has gone through a process, and I understand that it has been amended in order to fit within the rules, and it is indeed consistent with supplementary questions which have been allowed already in this question time.

Look, the question itself has been modified from what was first brought to the Clerks and—actually, now that I look at it, it’s not modified the way it was meant to be modified. I think, if I look at another sheet to make sure that I’m looking at the right one—OK. The point, I think, here, is that the answer to it could well be the suggestion just made by the Leader of the House. So the question is on the sheet. The question will stand. I’ll call the Hon Mark Mitchell.

Well, as incoming Minister, I was advised that the previous Government had failed to complete work on the ratio announced and had, in fact, severely underfunded it. I’m committed to the additional 500 police officers agreed in our coalition agreement.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will he guarantee the 1:480 police to population ratio?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, that is not the coalition’s policy; that is the failed, outgoing Government’s policy. Our policy is to commit to an additional 500 police officers on top of the 1,800 police officers that New Zealand First delivered—New Zealand First and National, in this coalition Government, will now deliver 2,300 additional police officers.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does the Government have any policy on police to population ratio?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, the outgoing Government had a shambolic policy in relation to police to public ratio. The coalition Government has got a very clear and concise policy. We are going to add an additional 500 police officers to the front-line police numbers.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order. I don’t think that question was actually addressed.

SPEAKER: Sorry, say that again. There was noise over here from your colleagues.

Hon Ginny Andersen: I’d like a point of order. That supplementary question was not addressed by the Minister.

SPEAKER: Well, in what way was it not addressed? You’re not always going to get an answer that is totally satisfactory to the question being asked. That’s a long-established factor here. Ask the question again.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does the Government have any policy on police to population ratio?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Again, the Government’s policy and commitment as a coalition is very clear. We are going to add—net—an additional 500 front-line police officers during the term of this Government.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with the comment of Christopher Luxon that the funding for additional police comes out of future operating allowances, $124 million over four years?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, the reality is that the books were a shambles under the previous Government. So we’ve got quite a bit of work to do. The previous Government already underfunded the policy around the 1:480 numbers. So we’ve made a commitment to the 500 and we will come through with that commitment. But, believe me, we’ve got a lot of work to do to tidy up the mess that that Government made.

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I respect the ruling that you made before, around whether or not you can expect a particular answer. That question was actually about the source. We can have a debate about the amount, which the member had done several times in earlier questions, but that was a question about the source of the funding, and it wasn’t addressed.

SPEAKER: Well, the police Minister will, obviously, make submissions to the finance Minister, as the member will well know the process to be. Where the funding comes from is not a specific bucket, as the member might like to convey.

Hon Grant Robertson: Should we ask you the questions, because this is a better answer.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I know—well, I could easily agree with you on that, but that’s not where we’re at. The point is that the Minister has answered the way a Minister should.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: No, he hasn’t.

SPEAKER: Well, that might be your opinion; it’s not mine.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will he guarantee there’ll be no cuts or reprioritisation to the police budget in order to deliver 500 extra police?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Absolutely, I’ll make that guarantee. This Government is committed to supporting our front line, because it appears not only were they a soft on crime Government; they’re a soft on crime Opposition as well. We are committed to supporting our front line. It is a coalition commitment that we will deliver 500 front-line police officers and we will do that.

Question No. 12—Social Development and Employment

12. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she seen on the jobseeker support benefit?

According to the latest benefit numbers released by the Ministry of Social Development in November, there are currently 182,340 people on jobseeker support. This is an increase of over 11,000 people this year alone. In total, there were 61,614 more people receiving the jobseeker support benefit during Labour’s time in Government.

Joseph Mooney: What have the labour market conditions been over the past two years?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Over the past two years, the employment market has been one of the tightest in recent memory, with employers everywhere crying out for staff. However, this opportunity was squandered by the previous Government, and, unfortunately, this has led to an increase of over 60,000 people on the jobseeker benefit.

Joseph Mooney: When is the jobseeker support benefit expected to peak?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The tough economic conditions that our Government has inherited mean that the number of people on the jobseeker benefit is expected to keep rising until January 2025. The latest figures, released in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update, forecast the number will increase to 197,400 New Zealanders.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How does the proportion of working-age New Zealanders on jobseeker benefit now compare to the same period of time post - global financial crisis under the National Government’s watch?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: What is relevant today is the increase in number that that Government, when they were in charge for six years, oversaw; a massive increase in the number of people on the jobseeker benefit. When the unemployment rate was low, nearly 3 percent higher were on the jobseeker support benefit.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was actually relatively specific. If the Minister doesn’t know, she can simply say “I don’t know”, but it’s not an open invitation to attack the person asking the question.

SPEAKER: Well, it may not be, but, remember, too, in discussions we’ve actually quite recently had, where there is a clear political point being made in a supplementary question—which I think it was, in that case—then it’s reasonable that you’re going to get a different type of answer.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. There was absolutely no political statement in there. It was asking the Minister to compare one period of time with another period of time. What was the political statement?

SPEAKER: I took it that by the member asking firstly a primary about the—the primary relates to what reports has she seen on jobseeker support benefit, and then it morphed into what’s different to what was happening six years ago. I think there was a point trying to be made. However, in good faith, let’s have Carmel Sepuloni ask another question—might be a similar one—and see what the Hon Louise Upston can say in reply.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I’ll ask a different one. How many of the 180,000 New Zealanders on main benefit now, are on benefit because they have a health condition or disability?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I think that member is getting her numbers mixed up. The 182,000 are on the jobseeker benefit. That is not the total number on main benefit—that is a lot higher.

SPEAKER: Point of order, Chris Bishop.

Hon Chris Bishop: Were you going to call the end of question time?

SPEAKER: No, I was going to take Joseph Mooney, who was on his feet.

Hon Chris Bishop: Oh, OK. I was going to wait until the end of question time. I’ll do it now.

SPEAKER: Well, no, we can wait until the end of question time.

Joseph Mooney: How many more young people were on jobseeker benefit under the Labour Government?

SPEAKER: No, the question’s out. Sorry.

Question No. 11 to Minister

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just before we move on, I wanted to ask you, sir, to just reflect on question No. 11 and the primary wording of that. If it is now the practice that Ministers can be asked to stand by statements made by spokespeople in Opposition or in other roles, that will significantly widen the potential ambit of questions to Ministers. That would be quite a change to the way question time has worked. So we let question No. 11 go, and, you know, it was fine. It is what it is. But I think it would be helpful if you would maybe reflect on that and provide some clarity for the whole House.

SPEAKER: I think I should also be absolutely certain that any adjustments that are made to questions are reflected in the sheet. The words “stand by the statement” could well have been “agree with”, in which case it would have brought it totally in order.