Oral Questions

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

Yes, and especially the very strong actions the Government has taken to ensure that we’re focused on improving the lives of New Zealanders by rebuilding the economy, and particularly with news out this morning that the previous Government’s economic mismanagement saw the economy shrink in three of the past four quarters—three of the past four quarters. In particular, I stand by our action to stop the significant risk posed to taxpayers by cost escalations on KiwiRail’s ferry project; also our action to focus the Reserve Bank on fighting inflation, which is, of course, pain and suffering to all New Zealanders; of course, our action to actually change the speed limit rules to allow New Zealanders to get to where they need to go faster and safer. I have to tell you this is a Government that is elected with a mandate for change and an unashamed and unflinching focus on cleaning up the mess left by that member’s Government to get our country back on track and realise all the great potential that sits in this country.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he stand by his Government’s decision to suspend regulatory impact statements for proposals in his 100-day plan, and does he feel that suspending advice on the impact of his decisions is based on data and evidence?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are very comfortable with suspending regulatory impact statements because we don’t think they’ll add value for decisions that we’re repealing legislation on.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree with the National Party leader, Christopher Luxon, that “I can tell you we’re going to be straight with the New Zealand people, tell it as it is—the good, the bad and the ugly”; if so, what’s changed?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Very much—we’re going to be very straight up with the New Zealand people, and what they have heard today is that that was a previous Government that led three of the last four quarters’ declining economic growth. What they’ve heard today, and we’ve been straight up with the New Zealand people about, is a $15 billion New Zealand Upgrade project with an Auditor-General’s report that says it was appallingly managed—appallingly managed. What you’re going to see is a Government that is very focused on making sure taxpayers are not treated like bottomless ATM machines, that we get return for their money.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Did he suspend regulatory impact statements before or after the regulatory impact statement for repealing fair pay agreements was leaked?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are determined to make sure, through repealing the fair pay awards legislation, that we can actually make it easier for people to hire workers, not harder.

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Point of order—I think I know what’s coming.

Hon Grant Robertson: Yeah, well, do you want to do it?

SPEAKER: I think you could do a bit better with the answer, Prime Minister, on that one.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It was before.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he stand by his Government’s decision to repeal fair pay agreements, the Reserve Bank dual mandate, and the Clean Car Discount under urgency with no select committee process or regulatory impact statement, or does he agree with Chris Bishop that “This is a disgraceful way to make important law.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first leg of the question, yes.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Has he suspended receiving regulatory impact statements because (a) he doesn’t like what they say, (b) he’s going to ignore them anyway, (c) he knows they’ll leak, or (d) all of the above?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We went to an election, we had a campaign, we made very clear what we were going to do, and we’re going to do it.

Hon Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, can we now expect that because of the election result, no pieces of legislation will be referred to a select committee?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. We want a proper process. [Interruption] No, no, hear the answer—hear the answer. The answer is: when we went to the election with really good clarity about the policies we’re going to repeal and the dumb legislation from the previous Government that we’re repealing—we’re going to move forward with great speed so that we can actually get this country moving forward. But what I’d just say: I think it is ironic on a day when we’ve had economic news where in three of the last quarters under the previous Government we had negative economic growth, at a time when inflation has been out of the band for the last over 21 months, when we’ve seen wages not keeping pace with inflation, we haven’t had a single economic question from the Opposition—a single economic question from the Opposition.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister: has the Government just learnt, with respect to KiwiRail, the lack of impact that the impact statement had on the previous Government?

SPEAKER: No, look, I’ll tell you what, these sort of questions aren’t very helpful to the order of the House. They might be enormously entertaining for a number of people, but they’re not helpful for the order of the House, and that’s two days in a row, so can you sort of keep it down to genuine questions? There must be a lot of genuine questions you could ask the Government.

Hon Phil Twyford: Does the Government now support the immediate humanitarian ceasefire it voted for at the United Nations General Assembly yesterday, or does it still believe there are a list of preconditions that must be met before calling for a ceasefire?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think our position is very clear. We want a cease to hostilities—as you’ve seen in the parliamentary statement; as you’ve seen from the joint Prime Ministers’ statements for Australia, New Zealand, and Canada; and as you’ve seen for our support for the General Assembly resolution.

Question No. 2—Finance

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

New Zealand is experiencing difficult economic conditions. Statistics New Zealand confirmed today that GDP declined in the third quarter of this year, a third decline in just the last year. It’s also been confirmed that New Zealand did experience a recession at the end of the last year and the beginning of this year. I’ve also seen reports from the member for Remutaka, who claimed last week that we “inherited an economy that is growing faster than many economists had predicted” and that the economy was “never in recession”, but I have seen no evidence to confirm those reports.

Stuart Smith: What reports has she seen on the outlook from here?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: After six years of economic mismanagement, turning the New Zealand economy around won’t be achieved overnight. Our Government has inherited big fiscal deficits, a large current account deficit, an economy in decline, and a labour market on the skids. Rebuilding the economy will be a massive task, which is why we are moving fast and getting quick wins as part of our 100-day plan.

Stuart Smith: What reports has she seen on GDP per capita?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Today’s GDP per capita figures show on a per person basis the New Zealand economy has gone nowhere since the start of 2021 and has gone backwards four quarters in a row. The last time GDP per capita continued to slide for at least that long was during the global financial crisis. Kiwis knew they were going backwards under Labour. Today’s data is just a confirmation of the challenge they face.

Stuart Smith: What steps is the Government taking to turn economic conditions around?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government is taking urgent steps to rebuild the economy in the interests of all New Zealanders. We’re supporting the Reserve Bank in their fight to beat inflation, because after years of rampant spending, this Government understands that monetary policy needs mates. We’re eliminating wasteful spending, ensuring taxpayers’ money is spent well, and we’re clearing out the blockages in the economy and reducing costs on business so we can chart a course back to growth, investment, and opportunity.

Question No. 3—Energy

3. to the Minister for Energy: What are the total emissions reductions that will result from the doubling of renewable energy that was promised by the Prime Minister?

Our commitment to doubling renewable energy will provide businesses with the investment certainty they need to make the switch to renewable energy, which will ensure emissions reductions. We have started work on updating the national policy statement for renewable electricity generation to make it easier to consent renewable energy. Part of that work will include getting that advice. I note that the Boston Consulting Group study The Future is Electric found that electrification could reduce annual carbon emissions by 22 million tonnes in 2050.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What percentage of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions come from the energy sector?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Now, what percentage of our energies is about 50 percent.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Can he confirm that the percentage of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions that come from the electricity generation is 5.7 percent, whereas the percentage of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions that come from the energy sector is 40.6 percent?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as the member rightly knows, those are very good statistics and I’m sure she’s correct.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What other policies, then, does the Government have to reduce the 40.6 percent of New Zealand’s emissions that come from the energy sector, given that the Minister’s own officials advise that only 5.7 percent of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions come from electricity generation and the Climate Commission advised complementary measures to the emissions trading scheme (ETS) are required to shift industrial and process heat from carbon sources?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as the member will know—being a former Minister for energy—the electrification of our economy is going to require a significant amount of more electricity to be generated. That is why we have a policy of updating the national policy statement for renewable electricity generation to double renewable energy in New Zealand. And it’s not just for electricity supply now, but for all of the other activities that it’s going to be required—in transport and industry and energy, all of those other factors—and I thought the member might know that.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I did actually ask a very specific question and it was around policies that are going to be required to move energy emissions over to electricity.

SPEAKER: Look, yep. Stop arguments and save time. It was a very long question. Can you ask it concisely again?

Hon Dr Megan Woods: OK. What policies does the Government have to move industrial and process heat coming from fossil fuel sources to electrification?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, this Government will use the emissions trading scheme, which is a critically important tool—and a critically important market-based tool—to help move New Zealand and bend the curve of emissions down. That Government over there wanted to subsidise wealthy businesses with profitable businesses using taxpayers’ money. We’ll use the emissions training scheme as the key tool.

Scott Willis: What is his plan to fix market imbalances in an electricity market dominated by four gentailers, which today’s Generating Scarcity 2023 report shows has stifled investment in renewable electricity generation and resulted in billions of excess dividends to shareholders, all while thousands of New Zealanders struggle to heat their homes?

SPEAKER: I appreciate that’s the member’s first question, but it’s a very long one and contained quite a degree of statement. So just work that one through in the future, but the Minister will now answer.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, thank you, and it’s a very good question. But what is stifling the market was this former Government’s Lake Onslow—

SPEAKER: Yep, you’re not talking about them.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —programme: $16 billion, which was actually stifling investment—

SPEAKER: Yep, that’ll do. That’s enough.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Can he confirm that for the ETS alone to shift industrial process heat to electrification, the price needs to be in excess of $200 a tonne, and can he advise New Zealanders what it will do to their electricity and petrol bills at that price?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: What I can confirm is this Government is going to have the tools and the policies to double renewable energy in New Zealand so we can electrify our economy. What I will say, though, to the businesses—the profitable businesses—which were receiving subsidies under that Government, they will not be receiving them under this Government. They should be making those investments themselves. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Very good, thank you. We’ll call question No. 4.

Question No. 4—Infrastructure

4. to the Minister for Infrastructure: What recent reports has he seen on decision-making processes for Government infrastructure investments?

I’ve seen a deeply concerning report from the Auditor-General into the shovel-ready and New Zealand Upgrade programmes. The Auditor-General found that Ministers did not have enough information to be sure that decisions supported value for money, and that the Government carried out due diligence after announcements were made. He also has reported to Parliament that as part of putting together the report, some of the so-called shovel-ready projects were not actually shovel-ready at all. Like many who have read this report, I was shocked to learn of these findings and see how badly the schemes were managed.

Grant McCallum: Were Ministers provided advice which raised concerns about their proposed plans for these Government infrastructure investments?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, they were indeed. The Auditor-General found that at several points, officials advised Ministers of risks to value for money for both the Upgrade programme and the shovel-ready programme. What’s more, Ministers were explicitly advised there was a real risk of cost overruns as well as delays. The Ministry of Health advised a number of health projects were not ready to be announced, yet despite all these warnings, Ministers pushed on with the announcements anyway.

Grant McCallum: Did the Auditor-General raise any additional concerns about ministerial decision-making?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Unfortunately, he did. He found that Ministers made their decision to progress some of these projects despite the projects not being fully scoped or even planned. Business cases were not always available or up to date. In the case of Auckland Transport, announcements were made about Auckland Transport projects and Auckland Transport were not even asked for the business cases or for information about the projects they were responsible for. It is clear Ministers were too worried about hitting “send” on press releases rather than ensuring value for money for taxpayers.

Grant McCallum: Supplementary—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment. Just stay standing—we’ll just have a bit of quiet while people are asking their question.

Grant McCallum: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Did the Auditor-General raise any specific concerns about transparency and integrity as part of these infrastructure investments?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, he did, and this is very worrying—the House should listen to this. The Auditor-General stated, and I quote, “A lack of transparency in documentation about how and why decision-makers made significant decisions can … create the perception that processes lack integrity.” To quote the report itself, “During the process of longlisting, shortlisting, and Ministers making final decisions … many changes were made to the list of projects under consideration. There were frequent discussions between Ministers’ offices and officials during this time, and some projects were added from outside of the Infrastructure Reference Group process … My staff found it difficult to determine how or why these changes were made.”

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does he agree with the comments made by the Hon Shane Jones in the Northern Advocate on 22 May 2021, I quote, “We had a pretty good lick of the cherry in the last three years and as far as Northland is concerned, I’ve learnt the hard way in that the challenge to getting things done is timeliness and execution. Now, the acid is on the system to get the projects running and to get the money out. For a small country with a very modest population, we spend an inordinate amount of time ticking boxes.”

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. That is a seriously true statement, except it is not the Minister’s responsibility to answer it.

SPEAKER: Thank you. The question was “Had he seen …”—

Hon Members: “Did he agree …”

SPEAKER: Well, it’s a bit like assumption; you’re allowed to speculate occasionally, and in this case it’s not unreasonable.

Hon Members: Do you agree?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I agree with a lot of what Shane Jones says, particularly about the need for speed when it comes to consenting, about which the Government will have more to say very soon.

Grant McCallum: Were the stakeholders to these impacted projects well consulted as part of this process?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it won’t surprise the House to learn that the answer is no. In one of the most surprising findings of this deeply troubling report, key stakeholders like the Infrastructure Commission and Auckland Transport had to find out about the New Zealand Upgrade programme through media coverage—and if that isn’t reflective of the priorities of the last Government, I’m not sure what is. We are a coalition Government who knows that high-quality infrastructure boosts our economy and benefits all New Zealanders. We are committed to multi-generational infrastructure up and down this country, but we also know that proper process and respect for taxpayer money should be at the forefront of our decisions, and it will be under this coalition Government.

Question No. 5—Transport

5. to the Minister of Transport: What did the official advice provided to Cabinet on 4 December estimate would be the impact of discontinuation of the clean car discount on New Zealand’s carbon dioxide emissions, and were there any inconsistencies between this advice and other analysis provided by the Ministry of Transport?

The advice to Cabinet noted that the transport sector remains on target to achieve its contribution to the first emissions reduction plan. Advice provided to Cabinet is consistent with all the advice provided to me by the Ministry of Transport.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has referred to this document, and I’m wondering if we could ask the Minister to table the documents since he’s referred to the content of it in the House.

SPEAKER: It’s a matter of whether or not he relied on the document in the House or was simply making a statement from it. So I’ll ask the Minister: is that a document he has with him in the House that he would want to table?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I just said that it was advice provided to me.

SPEAKER: Advice provided—yeah. I think there’s a slight difference between advice provided and a document. So thank you but—your next supplementary?

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Why won’t he release the draft regulatory impact statement that was prepared by the Ministry of Transport on the impacts of carbon emissions before we vote on the legislation today?

SIMEON BROWN: It was a draft document.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Why won’t he release the draft document so we can see what the draft advice was before we vote on the legislation?

SIMEON BROWN: It was a draft document. I’ve asked Ministry of Transport officials to prepare the proactive release of this Cabinet paper and regulatory impact statement.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Why won’t the Minister release the advice produced by the Ministry of Transport telling us what the impacts of the repeal of this legislation will be on New Zealand’s carbon dioxide emissions before we vote on the legislation in the House today?

SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I’ve said, the advice to Cabinet noted that the transport sector remains on target to achieve its contribution to the first emissions budget.

Simon Court: What impact will removing the Clean Car Discount have on transport emissions given they’re already covered by the emissions trading scheme?

SIMEON BROWN: Well, that is a very good point; they are covered by the emissions trading scheme and capped under that scheme. But also, as I said in my answer to the primary question, the advice to Cabinet noted that the transport sector remains on target to achieve its contribution to the first emissions reduction plan.

Mark Cameron: Are there other impacts from removing this ute tax, like the benefits to the rural communities who will no longer need to pay the fee on their farm vehicles?

SIMEON BROWN: Well, yes, this removal will have a huge benefit for our rural communities. In fact, the advice I’ve received shows that of the $290 million paid in tax under the ute tax scheme, half of it has come from people buying utes. Many of them will be farmers and tradies in our rural communities.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does the official advice that the Minister is refusing to release before we vote on the legislation concur with the report released by Concept Consulting for Drive Electric that the reduced uptake of electric vehicles, because of the repeal of the Clean Car Discount, will see New Zealand spending over a billion more on imported oil from overseas and mean that we will import 100,000 fewer electric vehicles in the period from now to 2030, thereby increasing carbon emissions relative to if the scheme stayed in place?

SIMEON BROWN: I dispute the assertion made by the member. In fact, I was very pleased to see yesterday that Ford announced that, from 1 July, the day after the tax will be removed, they will be reducing the price of some of their electric vehicles from between $5,000 and $8,000.

Chris Bishop: Has the Minister received reports about past examples of Ministers adamantly refusing to release correspondence about related matters to the transport portfolio that might be in the public interest to release?

SPEAKER: You may want to ask that question, but the Minister’s not going to answer it. It’s in the same category as the questions we had earlier: interesting but not particularly relevant to the question.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: If the Government is concerned about subsidising wealthy people, why is the Government happy to give money—billions of dollars in tax breaks—to wealthy landlords when that does nothing to reduce emissions? Is it the case that this Government is happy to give money to rich people when it does nothing to reduce emissions?

SPEAKER: Sorry, that question is out of order as well.

Question No. 6—Education

6. to the Minister of Education: What recent reports has she seen around distractions in classrooms?

The 2022 Programme for International Student Assessment results released last week found that half of students said learners get distracted by using devices in every, or most, math lessons compared to 30 percent of students on average in the OECD. Many parents have expressed concerns about the use of cellphones at school, and research indicates that removing these distractions leads to an improvement in academic achievement, health, and other social benefits.

Mike Butterick: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Mike Butterick. We’ll just wait a minute for the House to go quiet.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. With respect, we’re struggling to hear. So if we could just have some of the speakers move forward. Thank you.

SPEAKER: Yeah, can the technicians just find out whether that mike is going as well as it could, but we will take the supplementary from Mike Butterick.

Mike Butterick: What does the Government plan to do about this?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: To assist a turn-around in falling achievement, students need to focus on their schoolwork during their precious class time. That means doing what we can to eliminate unnecessary distractions. That is why, as part of our 100-day plan, the Government will ban cellphone use during the school day for students so they can focus on their learning. New Zealand schools that have banned cellphone use, and overseas jurisdictions that have imposed bans, report better concentration and engagement in class, and have seen an improvement in achievement and wellbeing.

Mike Butterick: What feedback has the Minister heard around the banning of cellphones in schools?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Feedback from principals who have already imposed bans has been very positive. In a recent New Zealand Herald article: “Otago Boys’ High School rector Richard Hall said banning cellphones during school hours was ‘one of the best things I’ve done’.” Hall said that since the policy was implemented “it was now normal to see boys interacting and playing together during breaks. Staff were also spending a lot less time dealing with cyber-bullying.” A 14-year-old student from Hillmorton High School in Christchurch said, “People are talking to each other more, rather than just sitting on their phones.” She said, “In whānau groups people are actually talking and socialising, getting to know people more. Also, you’re not distracted by things on your phone and can focus more on your schoolwork.”

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Banning everything except smoking.

SPEAKER: Yep, well, I’m going to ban all commentary on all questions if we can’t just be a little more orderly.

Mike Butterick: Does this change echo global trends around cellphone use in schools?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Yes. More and more countries around the world are banning or considering a ban on cellphones in schools. This year, a Unesco report called for a global ban on smartphones in schools, and they found that the use of social media in the classroom is disruptive and has negative impacts on learning outcomes. The mere presence of a mobile device was found to distract students and have a negative impact on learning areas in 14 countries. The use of technology is associated with negative impacts on physical and mental wellbeing, and increased susceptibility to online risks and harms, which affect academic performance in the long term. And I suggest that if the Opposition have a further supplementary, they should take that opportunity, but I suggest that they probably won’t.

Question No. 7—Health

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

on behalf of the Minister of Health: On behalf of the Minister, yes. I particularly stand by my statement on the New Zealand Health Survey that the results underline “just how badly an urgent change in direction for health is required”.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that the New Zealand Health Survey shows that the smoking prevalence for Māori is still 17 percent, and repealing amendments to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act will mean unacceptable levels of Māori cancers and Māori deaths, and aren’t those outcomes worth showing some moral courage for?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister, this has been delegated to Minister Costello. What the Minister has said is that this Government is committed to reducing smoking rates. This Government is committed to reducing smoking rates and helping people quit smoking.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he stand by his answer last week that the target of 5 percent smoking prevalence was unlikely to be achieved, even with that Government’s proposed policies, or does he agree with Dr Shane Reti MP’s statement that the denicotinisation proposal “by itself, almost gets us to the smoke-free target that we’re looking for.”?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister, as I’ve said to the House before, this has been delegated to Minister Costello.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Can he confirm that, following this flip-flop, the Government’s health policy amounts to nothing but scrapping the free prescriptions initiative in order to fund cancer medicines while allowing more cancer-causing tobacco to fund millionaire’s tax cuts?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister, this Government is committed to improving health outcomes for all New Zealanders, including Māori. Particular areas of need we’re targeting are shorter stays in emergency departments, faster cancer treatment, improved immunisation, shorter wait times for first specialist assessment, and shorter wait times for surgery. I find it interesting with that member, who was part of a Government that took a wrecking ball to our health system in the middle of a pandemic.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: What does he say to the thousands of people who marched, the 47,000 who signed a petition, and the 67 percent of voters who want our smoke-free laws to stay, and why won’t he front up to them?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister, this Government is committed to reducing smoking rates and helping people quit smoking.

SPEAKER: Listen, we’re going to have to make a bigger effort when questions are being asked. With all due respect to Dr Verrall, when she was asking her questions, a lot of the commentary was still coming from both sides of the House. Even though you’re quick out of the blocks, you’ve still got to show that respect.

Question No. 8—Health

8. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement, “The dream I have for Māori is to lift pretty much every health metric we have to the level we have for non-Māori”; if so, what actions, if any, will he take to achieve this?

on behalf of the Minister of Health: Yes, and I stand by the rest of the quote where the Minister said, “I think the hapū probably know what’s best for their communities.”

Hūhana Lyndon: How will Māori health leadership be brought into the health sector when you intend to disestablish Te Aka Whai Ora?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister, can I point the member to another quote, “My dream is to devolve decision making and funding and give to mana motuhake as close to home and hapū as possible.”

Hūhana Lyndon: Why is the Minister proposing to repeal a structure that will enable Te Aka Whai Ora to take a local approach empowering hapū, iwi, and whānau through iwi-Māori partnership boards and localities?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister, as outlined in the Speech from the Throne, services will be delivered on need using a range of effective providers, including iwi and community groups, who have the best reach into the communities they serve. On this side of the House, we believe communities know what’s best for their people, not Wellington.

Hon Marama Davidson: If he agrees that iwi and Māori are best placed to ensure our health system works well for Māori at a central level as well as through local devolution, then why not ensure this is resourced through Te Aka Whai Ora that was already established, instead of creating a new model?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister, if I can point that member to another quote from the story she’s referenced: “The difference in philosophy on where we want to go and where the Māori Health Authority was going was why was all that funding held in Wellington with a Wellington-knows-best approach?”

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he acknowledge that removing the smoke-free laws will mean more people will die from smoking while the only people who will benefit from this are landlords getting tax cuts?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister—have stated in the House before, I have full confidence in Minister Costello, and to reaffirm this Government is committed to reducing smoking rates and helping people give up smoking.

Question No. 9—Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti

SPEAKER: [Interruption] And the same rules apply. When the question is being asked, be quiet.

9. to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: Is he planning on attending Waitangi 2024; if so, what preparations, if any, has started on behalf of the Government?

E te Māngai o te Whare. In response to the first pātai, and in my Wanganui dialect, ana. In response to the second pātai, planning is well under way across Government, and the calendar will be finalised shortly.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does the Minister think that repealing section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, disestablishing the Māori Health Authority, repealing smoke-free legislation, removing Māori names of Government departments, repealing fair pay agreements, and introducing a Treaty Principles Bill will enhance the Māori-Crown relationship, and, if so, will he and the Prime Minister be prepared to front up and discuss this at Waitangi 2024?

SPEAKER: I know the point of order that’s about to be made, but I have to say, right at the cusp—the Hon Willie Jackson brought it just inside the borders. It’s not unreasonable that he lists some of the Government’s policies and asks about their context in Crown-Māori relations, particularly given the venue that is a subject in the question.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We look forward to a warm and cordial welcome by our Tai Tokerau whanaunga, where we will discuss many important—of national significance.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister, will he set time aside in the discussion or kōrero at Waitangi, for Willie Jackson to explain why he lost all those Māori seats?

SPEAKER: No response required.

Hon Simeon Brown: Are you going to answer it?

SPEAKER: The member can ask a question; he can’t answer one.

Hon Willie Jackson: Will the Minister ensure that the Prime Minister will be there?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: E mārama ana au e whaiwhai haere ana te tari o te Pirīmia me ōna āpiha kia whakarite mai te haere ki Waitangi, heoi anō, kei te Pirīmia me tōna tari te mana whiriwhiri.

[I understand that the Prime Minister and his officials are working towards going to the Waitangi; however, the decision lies with the Prime Minister and his office.]

Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. You’ll have to get your translations on, but I don’t believe he’s addressed the question. What do you think?

SPEAKER: What do I think?

Hon Willie Jackson: What do you think?

SPEAKER: I think that was an excellent answer.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does the Minister agree with the statement of a young Tama Potaka when he said central government and local government need to consider sharing power with Māori instead of hoping that Māori entitlements and demands will be satisfied with policies that, effectively, mainstream Māori into Pākehā society; if so, will he commit to discussing this at Waitangi 2024?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: National-led Governments have linked in and engaged with many Māori over time, including in Waikato, with the Waikato River settlement. That is a great reflection of working together.

Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker, point of order—point of order. Mr Speaker, point of order.

SPEAKER: Hold on—no.

Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker, he didn’t even go near the question—didn’t go near it.

SPEAKER: Yeah—Willie, please. I’ll come back to you in a minute, right? So we’ll just do things bit by bit. Sit right down. Good. Now, I’m not sure who was on their feet first here. Supplementary, the Hon Chris Bishop.

Hon Members: It was a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: He didn’t call—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: He did.

Hon Grant Robertson: Very loudly.

SPEAKER: No—excuse me. Sorry, you can say what you like, but it’s all on film.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Oh, that’s good—that’s good. Great. We’ll sort it out later!

SPEAKER: Yeah, you sort it out later if you like, but, the way I took it, he started to tell me the point of order before he was called. Point of order, then—Willie Jackson.

Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Speaker. You’re doing a good job.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m not feeling very good about it at the moment, and that could blow back on the member.

Hon Willie Jackson: The Minister did not address whether he agreed with the young Tama Potaka.

SPEAKER: And if the member looks at his own primary question, even though he’s expanded it—and I’ve been very generous to him—it is so wide of the mark, it’s not a reasonable question to ask him. So we’ll let it go.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister whether or not eight New Zealanders with Māori in their background in Cabinet is not evidence enough of equality and democratic representation in this country?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’m absolutely proud of there being the highest number of Māori members in the Cabinet that there ever has been.

Hon Willie Jackson: Congratulations about that, Tama. Can I seek leave to table a document? It’s called “A Treaty Agendum for Local Government”, by Tama Potaka, where he is very clear—

SPEAKER: Where does it come from? Is it published and is it available?

Hon Willie Jackson: It’s been, but not widely. Many people in this—in fact, probably no one in this House has read this, and it’s really good reading. It’s really good reading, so seeking leave.

SPEAKER: Now that the member’s done the advertorial, a lot of people might seek it out to read it. But it’s very available.

Hon Chris Bishop: Will there be discussions at Waitangi 2024 about the failed TVNZ-RNZ merger—

SPEAKER: No—that’s out of order too.

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Yes?

Hon Chris Bishop: You ruled, in relation to the primary question’s original question, that a long list—I think it was 10 items—and whether or not those would be discussed at Waitangi 2024—you said that that was within the scope. I, frankly, find that remarkable, but I’m using the same formula.

SPEAKER: You might find it remarkable, but I also said that the member could answer that because they were Government policies that were being asked about. Now, you can add to every Government policy if you like. At some point, I get to make a discretionary decision about whether it’s a longer or shorter list—it’s been exhausted.

Question No. 10—Workplace Relations and Safety

10. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What steps has she taken to improve flexibility in the labour market?

Today I am pleased to announce that my bill to repeal the fair pay agreements system has passed its third reading in Parliament. By achieving this milestone, we are in the final stages of bringing about real change for businesses and workers that helps New Zealanders get ahead.

Cameron Luxton: How will repealing fair pay agreements and improving labour market flexibility benefit workers?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: This Government wants to see higher wages and better conditions for workers, especially during a cost of living crisis. Repealing the fair pay agreements legislation gives businesses the certainty they need to invest and grow, creating more and better jobs. By repealing the fair pay agreements, we will have improved labour market flexibility, which has been a pillar for New Zealand’s economic success for the past three decades. This Government has removed these one-size-fits-all agreements, which have no place in an economy where innovation is key. The best and most sustainable way to increase the wages of workers and to achieve lower prices for consumers is to improve productivity and to reduce the regulations that hold businesses back.

Cameron Luxton: What message would the Minister have for those who opposed the repeal of fair pay agreements?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: There has been a lot of scaremongering around the repeal of the fair pay agreements. I do wish to clarify a few points. First, I want to make it clear that no worker will have their wages cut or be worse off, because no fair pay agreements were finalised. Secondly, Māori, Pasifika, young people, and women will not be harmed or made worse off by the repeal of the fair pay agreements, because no fair pay agreement was finalised. The minimum standards in employment law remain, including the minimum wage, health and safety law, and leave entitlements.

Camilla Belich: What does she say to the 200,000 to 300,000 workers who would’ve benefited from fair pay agreements?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: No fair pay agreements had been finalised. All bargaining was in very early stages and everybody can be certain that their current entitlements remain.

Cameron Luxton: What other plans does the Minister have to increase flexibility in the labour market?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Next week, I will be introducing a bill to the House to expand access to 90-day trials to employers. Whether a business has two or 200 employees, bringing on any new employee costs time, it costs money, and it is in the best interests of any business to find the right fit. Expanding access to 90-day trials will give workers access to new opportunities they would otherwise not have. They allow employers to employ someone who might not tick all the boxes, but a person who might have the right attitude. By delivering on this Government’s commitment to extend the availability of 90-day trials, this Government will give all businesses greater confidence to employ more Kiwis.

Question No. 11—Agriculture

11. to the Minister of Agriculture: What reports has he seen on the export revenue forecasts for the primary sector?

The Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries report released today shows a forecast dip in export revenue. Exports hit a high of $57.7 billion this year but are forecast to drop to $54.3 billion in the year to June 2024. It’s been a tough few years for New Zealand’s food and fibre businesses. However, it’s still a strong result against a backdrop of very challenging times. The Government will be working with the primary sector to ensure they are productive and remain world’s best-practice food and fibre producers.

Suze Redmayne: What else is this coalition Government doing to help farmers?

Hon TODD McCLAY: We will be supporting our primary sector businesses through targeting a doubling of the value of exports over 10 years. We think we should measure ourselves more on how much we export and sell overseas by value, not just by volume. Non-tariff barriers cost New Zealand agriculture around $8 billion each year. We’re committed to working to resolve barriers that are preventing New Zealand’s world-class primary industry sectors from doing business with the world. We understand that part of growing value is getting more return for what we already export, and I’m delighted to work closely with the sector to see what else we should do to supercharge the support to businesses. We’re determined to the break down barriers that are such a drag on their product productivity and growth.

Suze Redmayne: What benefit can our primary sector expect to see from this work?

Hon TODD McCLAY: The Government is going to champion the significant achievements the primary sector has made at home and abroad. The sector accounts are 81.9 percent of New Zealand’s goods exports to the year June 2023. Food and fibre export revenue growth has exceeded the non-primary industries for seven of the last 10 years. Adding indirect effects, we estimate that the food and fibre sector contributions to GDP increased by 16 percent. They’re responsible for 13 percent of employment. When rural New Zealand does well, all of New Zealand does well, and when the rural economy is strong, New Zealand’s economy is strong. The coalition Government trusts farmers. We’ll be working to get costs down; better rules, not more regulations; supercharge the rural economy so farmers can be proud of what they do. We have stopped Labour’s war against farmers.

Question No. 12—Transport

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

Yes, and, in particular, actions to repeal Labour’s inequitable and fiscally irresponsible ute tax by 31 December as part of our coalition Government’s hundred-day plan. Can I thank the support from the ACT Party and the New Zealand First Party for this policy.

Tangi Utikere: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Well, he’s trying to speak.

Tangi Utikere: Does he stand by his statements on a regulatory impact statement for the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill: “I believe one has been drafted.” and “I believe it would be published.”; if so, when will it be published?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said in answer to earlier questions, there is a draft and it will be published.

Tangi Utikere: Point of order. Mr Speaker, the question was quite clear in terms of timing, and I submit to you that—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on, excuse me—points of order will be heard in silence.

Tangi Utikere: The question was quite clear in terms of timing, and I submit to you that the member has failed to address the question.

SPEAKER: Yes, but it was the second leg of the question. Ministers must address one of the legs of a question.

Tangi Utikere: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon: “I believe transparency is important, openness is important.”, and “Talking straight to the New Zealand people about outcomes and the achievement of them, or not, [it’s] how you get judged as a Government.”; if so, why is he refusing to release the regulatory impact statement before the final vote on the bill later today?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I always agree with the Prime Minister, who is getting our country back on track.

Tangi Utikere: Does he really think that telling journalists and members—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, just a minute—start again. You’ve got to be quiet when people are asking questions.

Tangi Utikere: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does he really think that telling journalists and members to just OIA a regulatory impact statement and continue to refuse to provide it to the Parliament meets National’s coalition agreement that “decisions will be based on data and evidence”; if so, how?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said in answer to earlier questions, the document will be released.