Oral Questions

1. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement, “We also want to see steps made towards a ceasefire”?

Yes, I do, and like everyone in this House, I am absolutely appalled by the human tragedy that has unfolded in Israel and Gaza since 7 October. I just think the images on our TV screens are incredibly distressing and confronting for all of us as New Zealanders to watch, and I especially regret that the parties have not been able to agree a further extension to the recent pause in fighting.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Government support calls for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in the war in Gaza; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we would like to see a ceasefire, but in order to achieve a sustainable ceasefire, as the member well knows, both sides actually need to be able to do so, and that means that they both have to agree to be able to put down their arms, they both have to actually agree to cease fighting across the whole area of the conflict in Gaza and in Israel, both parties actually need to commit to a political process and a peace process to resolve their differences, and both sides need to take those steps in order to get those conditions in place.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So is it the Government’s position that New Zealand should only call for a ceasefire once it’s already happened?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, I’ve been very clear: we would like to see a ceasefire, but it requires both parties to actually make that a sustainable action and ceasefire.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Government support an “immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce”, as called for in UN Resolution 2712?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, we do.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What’s the difference between that and an immediate ceasefire?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said, we want to see a ceasefire that takes place. It requires conditions on both sides to be adhered to, as I’ve outlined.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I asked the member what the difference is between what the Government does support and what it doesn’t support, and he hasn’t addressed that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: No, hang on—I haven’t ruled on the point of order yet. It’s my first one. That, unfortunately, is the lot of anybody asking an oral question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What is the difference between an immediate, durable, and sustained humanitarian truce and an immediate, permanent ceasefire?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, as I’ve said before, we would like to see an enduring, sustainable ceasefire. Yeah, we would all like to see that in this country, but the reality is, for a sustainable ceasefire to take place, you need both parties to agree to it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister as to whether or not the New Zealand Government—the new Government—added its name to the UN statement, and wouldn’t any informed member of Parliament in this country know that?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, we did.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why won’t the New Zealand Government call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire when more than 16,000 people have died, the great majority of them civilians, and that is continuing as we speak?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I’ve said, we would all like to see a sustainable ceasefire, but it actually requires all parties to actually make the conditions to make that happen, and for that to happen, for hostilities to cease, Hamas needs to actually cease its attacks on Israel, needs to stop exploiting civilian infrastructure and using civilians as shields, and it needs to locate and release all the remaining hostages. On the other hand, we actually need to see Israel respecting the laws of humanitarian law and war, we need to make sure that they’re actually ensuring that innocent civilians are being protected, they need to make sure that their civilians have access to food and fuel and resources and medical supplies, and we also need to make sure that the loss of life that we saw in the North doesn’t take place in the South. So there are responsibilities on both sides of this equation. There are responsibilities on both parties to make sure we get an enduring, sustainable ceasefire.

Golriz Ghahraman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is he concerned that under his watch, Aotearoa is failing to meet our legal obligations to act to prevent genocide, to protect the rights of children, and to act in the interests of global peace and security where war crimes are alleged—that’s “to act”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have supported UN resolutions, and we will continue to do so. We are calling on both parties to actually come together to make sure that we get a sustainable ceasefire in place.

Question No. 2—Finance

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

Hon Grant Robertson: That’s not very original!

It’s going to be a whole lot better, though. The reports I have seen confirm that our Government has inherited very challenging economic conditions. New Zealanders are struggling with a cost of living crisis and persistent inflation that has been outside of the Reserve Bank’s target range for 2½ long years. The official cash rate is at its highest level in 15 years, pushing mortgage interest rates over 7 percent. The Government books are in deficit and are burdened by more debt than at any point since 1995. Average tax rates for working people have risen, and, in the past year, per capita growth completely stalled.

Hon Grant Robertson: I think you should answer the question.

NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Robertson, it’s time for policies that back growth and investment, that reduce the tax burden on working people, and that restore discipline to Government spending, and that’s exactly what our Government will do.

Catherine Wedd: What state does the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update (PREFU) suggest the books are in?

NICOLA WILLIS: Terrible shape. The Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update showed that New Zealand is expected to run a deficit of $11.4 billion this year. Since 2017, growth in Government spending has vastly outstripped growth in revenue, driving a very large deficit. Previous promises made by the outgoing Minister of Finance to reduce Government spending after the pandemic—those promises were broken, with Government spending this financial year substantially higher than at any time during the pandemic, including periods where large parts of the country were locked down and businesses forcibly closed. Having inherited strong surpluses in 2017, the previous Government delivered years of fiscal deterioration, and our Government’s job will be to deliver the necessary repair.

Catherine Wedd: What reports has she seen on the outlook for Kiwi dairy farmers?

NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I know that that member and many of her constituents understand that farmers remain the backbone of this country, and they finally have a Government that is committed to reducing the burden of regulation that was piled high by the previous one. Dairy farmers across the country will be pleased with the news today that Fonterra have increased their forecast farm-gate milk price by 25c to $7.50—better times ahead.

Catherine Wedd: Has she—

SPEAKER: Just wait till I actually call you, if that’s OK. So, Catherine Wedd.

Catherine Wedd: Oh, thank you, Mr Speaker. Has she seen the latest ANZ Business Outlook report, and what does it indicate about the mood of the New Zealand business community?

NICOLA WILLIS: Well, yes, I have, and our Government might have inherited challenging economic conditions, but, clearly, our election has given many reason for hope, because ANZ’s Business Outlook shows business confidence is already higher than at any point during the last Government’s tenure. In fact, it’s at its highest level since March 2015. This is obviously an indictment on the last Government’s disregard for the business community. But, furthermore, it is an endorsement of this Government’s plan to bring costs down on business, remove unnecessary regulation, deliver tax relief, and beat inflation. After years of stagnation under Labour, there is a big job to do. For six years, Kiwis have felt the pain as our country’s economy has crawled along under the weight of a red-tape loving, big spending, big-tech taxing, fiscally reckless Government, and I am proud to say that we now have a Government that is committed to getting our economy back on its feet.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Just wondering if the Speakers’ rulings that have been applied consistently over many years, that Governments cannot ask themselves a question for the purpose of attacking the Opposition, are still in place?

SPEAKER: Yes, that’s quite right, and I’ll be more vigilant on future occasions.

Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Minister tell the House what the projected net debt for New Zealand was in the PREFU that she mentioned in her supplementary question?

NICOLA WILLIS: What I can tell the House is that debt has gone in New Zealand—Government debt has gone from $5.4 billion up to $100 billion.

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a specific question of the member. She clearly doesn’t know the answer to that specific question. She’s now using that question to attack the Opposition; that is against many Speakers’ rulings in the past.

SPEAKER: Well, that may be something you anticipated, but she’s only less than 10 seconds into that answer.

Hon Grant Robertson: Attacking.

SPEAKER: Well, I didn’t take it as an attack, so I’ll ask the Minister in her answer not to make an attack on the Opposition. It’s not appropriate; just stick to the facts. The facts always speak for themselves.

NICOLA WILLIS: Net debt in the Pre-election Fiscal Update can be found in the Pre-election Fiscal Update, and I wonder if the member paid as much attention to that figure when he was spending New Zealanders’ hard-earned money with wild abandon, as he is today in this House. And if only he had, then we wouldn’t be in a position where our debt as a country is higher as a proportion of our economy than at any point since 1995.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the finance Minister as to whether or not all the recent economic and inflation evidence suggests that Labour on their own couldn’t run a proverbial in a you-know-what?

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That’s a very present question.

SPEAKER: It’s an interesting question for you, but not for the House.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Yes, I do, and particularly my statement yesterday that New Zealand is under new management and that we are here because we are the parties that can get things done for New Zealanders. We are focused on three things: rebuilding the economy, restoring law and order, and delivering better outcomes for New Zealanders.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his commitment to remove the ban on new offshore oil and gas permits, and if so, does he agree with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that a thorough analysis of the costs and benefits of removing the ban should be undertaken before any legislation is introduced?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I do.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he committed to the principles in his coalition agreements of rigorous cost-benefit analysis and basing decisions on data and evidence, and, if so, does he accept the advice of the International Energy Agency from 2021 that if Governments are serious about the climate crisis, there can be no new investments in oil, gas, and coal from now?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, we do support rigorous cost-benefit analysis.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is the International Energy Agency’s expert scientific and technical analysis wrong?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It’s very obvious to us that New Zealand needs transitionary energy sources, and gas is a good part to doing that.

Hon Marama Davidson: What would he say to Vanuatu’s climate change Minister, Ralph Regenvanu, who said, in relation to his Government’s plan to reopen oil and gas drilling, “We call on them not to do it. To be in line with Paris, the 1.5 degree target, the science says you cannot do new fossil fuels.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’re deeply committed to delivering on our climate change goals and commitments, but we believe that gas is better than coal.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon, former CEO of Air New Zealand, that “We risk losing our social licence to operate if we do not genuinely address climate change.”, and, if so, does he accept that reopening oil and gas drilling would mean failing our Pacific neighbours and our mokopuna?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I agree Christopher Luxon is a very smart man.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Will the tax cut package promised by the Government in the Speech from the Throne be “self-funding”; if so, what specific revenue measures will be used to fund it?

Yes. I continue to seek advice from officials on the implementation of tax changes as part of the Budget process. I am still receiving advice on tax policies, and the details of any specific revenue measures the Government may choose to pursue are yet to be finalised.

Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm her earlier statement that revenue from rolling back the previous Government’s smoke-free policies will be used to fund the tax cut package?

NICOLA WILLIS: As I say, I am still receiving advice on tax policies and I do not intend to get ahead of final Government decisions.

Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm her statement made to the media that revenue derived from rolling back smoke-free changes will be used to fund tax cuts, or has her position on that changed?

NICOLA WILLIS: “We consider a range of issues around tax on an ongoing basis, and information about those will be released at an appropriate time.”, said one Grant Robertson on 2 May 2023. The difference between my approach and the previous Minister’s approach is I’m not hiding a sneaky wealth tax or capital gains tax when I answer these questions.

Hon Grant Robertson: Is she now regretting saying that the Government’s tax cut policies would be paid for by rolling back the smoke-free law changes?

NICOLA WILLIS: To quote a member of this House I admire very much, one Judith Collins, “I regret very little”.

Hon Grant Robertson: That was actually Édith Piaf, if I remember correctly. On what date will New Zealanders know how she is paying for the tax cuts that she has promised them?

NICOLA WILLIS: They will know in due course, and I’m sorry to say it, but I doubt that the member will be the first to know.

Hon Grant Robertson: So can she confirm that she is telling the House she doesn’t know how she’s paying for her tax cuts and she doesn’t know when she’s going to be able to tell New Zealanders what kind of tax cuts they will get or how they will be paid for?

NICOLA WILLIS: As I said in answer to the primary question, which the member may not have listened to, yes, the tax reduction package promised by the Government in the Speech from the Throne will be self-funding. I’ll tell you what else it’ll do: it’ll put real cash into the bank accounts of working people—bank accounts that have been eroded by a cost of living crisis presided over by that member, who over-taxed them, spent their money badly, and left the economy in tatters.

Question No. 5—Prime Minister

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

Yes, I do, and particularly our commitment to lifting educational achievement by removing distractions like cellphone use in the classroom to ensure that young people receive the quality education they deserve and lets them live the life that they ultimately want.

Tākuta Ferris: Tēnā koe, e te Pīka. He tāpiringa tāku.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a supplementary question.]

SPEAKER: Yeah, wait on. I’ll call you, eh.

Tākuta Ferris: Kia ora.

SPEAKER: You’ve just said you want to call—just do it again: “Mr Speaker.”

Tākuta Ferris: Tēnā koe e te Pīka.

SPEAKER: I call Tākuta Ferris.

Tākuta Ferris: Tēnā koe.

SPEAKER: Yep, sorry about that.

Tākuta Ferris: Ka tū māia ia ki tana kaupapa here kia tukuna Te Tiriti o Waitangi kia arohaehaehia, kia pōtingia e te motu whānui me te mōhio iho ki te māwehe me te kino ka whai mai i muri? Does he stand by the policy to leave the door open to a referendum on Te Tiriti o Waitangi knowing full well the division and chaos that that will cause?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: On what we have agreed as a Government, that we will pursue a Treaty Principles Bill to select committee, and that’s as far as it will go.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. With all due respect to the member’s question, I think he was asking about a referendum, not about a Treaty Principles Bill.

SPEAKER: Well, does the Prime Minister wish to say more to that question?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have not committed to a referendum.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: How can he stand by the decision to disestablish Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority, when it is an example of tangata whenua stepping up and being the solution to persistent inequalities in health outcomes?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because our Government is determined to see improved outcomes for Māori, but we don’t believe the Māori Health Authority is the best way to deliver that.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What is his response to experts in child protection who have made it very clear that removing section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act will lead to many more tamariki Māori being severed from whakapapa, an outcome that is inherently harmful and assimilationist? Tēnā, e te pāpā, tēnā koe. [I acknowledge you, my elder.]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The primary responsibility for the State to look after vulnerable children is to make sure that their wellbeing comes first and foremost above everything else.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Nō whea tana tikanga parahau hei turaki i te ture auahi kore o Aotearoa e kōkiri nei i te ao, ka mutu, ko te oranga o te iwi Māori hei utu i ngā tāke o te hunga whai rawa? How can he justify scrapping Aotearoa’s world-leading smoke-free laws, sacrificing Māori lives to fund tax cuts for the wealthy?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’re not. We’re going to make sure that smoking rates continue to come down each and every year, as they have done under successive Governments. In the last decade, daily smoking’s gone from 16 percent down to 8 percent. Our Government will continue to drive that down.

Question No. 6—Workplace Relations and Safety

6. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What is Government policy on Fair Pay Agreements?

ACT and National are both strongly opposed to fair pay agreements. When the law was introduced, both parties opposed it, and both campaigned to repeal it in the first 100 days of this Government. As a Government, we are committed to acting quickly to remove this law before any fair pay agreements are finalised and the negative impacts are felt by the labour market. Fair pay agreements would reduce choice in workplaces and undermine the flexible labour market which has underpinned New Zealand’s economic success for the past three decades. Our Government believes the best way to introduce the wages of workers is to improve productivity and reduce regulations so businesses have more money to pay staff more.

SPEAKER: I call on—you just got signed in, sorry. [Interruption] Camilla Belich. Sorry. My apologies.

Camilla Belich: Does she agree with the statement she made on 6 December when she said, “I don’t actually believe that fair pay agreements would help low-wage workers increase wages.”, or does she agree with the advice that she received in the regulatory impact statement that stated, “The main costs of repealing the FPA system would likely fall on employees” and that “They may have benefited from increased wages and improved terms and conditions of work.”?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I agree with my statement, and I also agree with the recommendations from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE’s) regulatory impact statement before the fair pay agreements legislation was passed, where MBIE recommended against introducing fair pay agreements.

SPEAKER: We come now to Question No. 7—

Laura Trask: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: My apologies.

Laura Trask: What economic impacts does she expect if the Fair Pay Agreements Act 2022 is not repealed?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: If any fair pay agreements were finalised, the increased costs would have greatly affected a range of businesses up and down the country, regardless of whether they could have afforded them. This would have increased prices for consumers and could cause business closures, which is worse for employees. I don’t consider that a blunt tool will help our labour markets for either employers or employees. Workers could have been negatively impacted, for example, if employers chose to hire fewer people or reduce hours of work due to higher costs that they face.

Laura Trask: What reports, if any, has she seen on the impact of fair pay agreements on businesses?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Many businesses submitted on the introduction of fair pay agreements, concerned about the impacts they would have. I have a few examples. Horticulture New Zealand said, “This will be a burden on the Government to administer and compliance check yet another regulatory instrument being imposed on business. Most businesses will likely have to employ additional resource to administer the regime—where their margins are already very stretched.” The Federated Farmers of New Zealand said, “Employers are facing an ever-increasing range of compliance and the accompanying costs, following the difficult period of the impact of COVID-19 and the likelihood of an approaching recession. We are concerned that as employers face ever increasing administrative complexities and costs, some business owners will be forced to downsize or simplify their business to avoid employing people or some close the doors entirely.” There are many more.

SPEAKER: Good. Brevity is always useful in an answer to a question.

Question No. 7—Health

7. to the Minister of Health: Why did he delegate responsibilities for the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990 to the Associate Minister of Health Hon Casey Costello, and why has he not made any delegations to the other associate Ministers of Health, Hon Matt Doocey and Hon David Seymour?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The current delegations I have given to the Associate Minister of Health, the Hon Costello, give effect to the coalition agreement with New Zealand First. I can assure the honourable member that the remaining delegations will be finalised shortly.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Can the Minister confirm that when setting the delegation to the Associate Minister the Hon Casey Costello, he set an expectation that she repeal the 2022 amendments to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990 either directly or by reference to the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement, and, if not, why not?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The Minister expressed an interest in the delegation, and I agreed.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why, then, did the Minister request his associate repeal a law that would save over 8,000 lives, extend Māori life expectancy, and save billions in healthcare costs?

SPEAKER: I think the problem with that question is that it makes a whole lot of assertions that are not currently in front of the House. So I think the member might like to consider rewording that supplementary.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did the Minister request his associate repeal a law that was shown, in modelling submitted to the select committee, would save over 8,000 lives, extend Māori life expectancy, and save billions in healthcare costs?

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. We’re in a bit of difficulty here, Mr Speaker, because the primary question as worded is actually about an extremely specific and narrow area of the Minister’s responsibility. It’s actually about the process of delegation for the responsibility of a specific Act to a specific Associate Minister, and the member’s question is straying into the substance of the actual law that is potentially at issue. If the member wanted to ask about that, she should have put a question down about that law. She didn’t.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m sure that’s the case, but—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. The member’s question is simply elaborating—seeking elaboration—on the last answer that Dr Reti gave.

SPEAKER: The supplementary question does need to come much closer to the primary question, notwithstanding that it may have moved slightly in the health Minister’s response, but not as far as perhaps Mr Hipkins is suggesting.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it the Minister’s expectation of the delegation that the Associate Minister will repeal the 2022 amendments to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act and, therefore, cost, as per the regulatory impact statement and evidence at select committee, over 8,000 lives, losses to Māori life expectancy, and billions in healthcare costs?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: It is my expectation that the Minister will fulfil her duties under the delegation.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Was the 2022 target—smokefree at the end of 2025, which is not too many months away from now—ever zero smoking or 5 percent smoking, and what sort of fraud target is that?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The target itself, through all the documents I’ve seen, was unlikely to be achieved even with that Government’s proposed policies.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Did he consider his obligations under the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control to keep tobacco industry influence out of Government before making the delegation to the Hon Casey Costello, who has previously chaired the Taxpayers’ Union, an organisation reported to receive funding from tobacco companies?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I considered all the required responsibilities when I made the delegation, and I have full confidence in the Minister.

SPEAKER: Can I just say to the member that that question was really quite a long way from where we need to be.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary question is about a delegation from one Minister to another. Asking about potential conflicts of interest in a delegation is absolutely in order.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Did the Minister delegate responsibility for the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act because he doesn’t want to answer to the Cancer Society, the Stroke Foundation, the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency, the Secondary Principals’ Council of New Zealand, and his own professional college, the College of General Practitioners, not to mention hundreds of other organisations that have condemned his actions?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: No, I have full confidence in the Minister.

Question No. 8—Energy

8. to the Minister for Energy: What recent announcements has he made on the Lake Onslow Pumped Hydro scheme?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This week, I announced that the coalition Government had axed the former Government’s hugely wasteful $16 billion Lake Onslow scheme This decision fulfils another commitment under our coalition Government’s 100-day plan.

Hon Willie Jackson: No one cares.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Labour’s pumped hydro scheme was a vanity project, and their intention to press ahead with it—no one cares about the project; that’s correct, Mr Jackson—was threatening the market-led investment needed to offer New Zealand the best chance of ensuring energy security. Our Government’s decision—

SPEAKER: OK, this is as close as anyone would want to go using a primary question, in this case, to attack the Opposition. I’m sure the Minister is well capable of answering other questions related to this.

Grant McCallum: What reports has he seen on the Lake Onslow pumped hydro scheme?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I’ve seen a number of reports on the pumped hydro Lake Onslow scheme, including from Contact Energy chairperson Rob McDonald, who warned that this scheme would have a chilling effect on a robust renewables investment pipeline in New Zealand.

Grant McCallum: Has the Minister seen any other reports on the cancellation of the Lake Onslow scheme?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes. I have also seen a report in The Press today where Labour’s energy spokesperson, and the former Minister for Energy and Resources, has said that Labour is rethinking its policy on this scheme.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What is the dollar amount of savings of cancelling the investigation into pumped hydro?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I believe it’s over $60 million, but under that former Government, they don’t care about taxpayers’ money. They wasted money every single day on business cases, consultants, reports, and if they’d continued it would’ve been $8,000 per household, at least, for the $16 billion scheme they proposed.

Grant McCallum: What are the Government’s next steps to ensure energy security?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the first priority was to scrap this Lake Onslow scheme within our first hundred days. Our next steps are to cut the red tape and to recognise the nature of the energy problem facing our country so that we can double renewable energy by 2050. Axing the Lake Onslow scheme and our coalition Government’s commitments to allow natural gas to function as a transition fuel will give our energy sector much greater confidence to invest in the dry year solution and keep the lights on.

Question No. 9—Foreign Affairs

9. to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he have any concerns about the Scott Base redevelopment in Antarctica?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which he started!

Quite right, exactly—I started it. And that’s why this is a very serious answer. Yes, we do have some serious concerns. Since the coalition Government took office last week, we’ve been briefed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade on serious cost escalations—does it sound familiar?—[Interruption]—now that they’re all by themselves—that the Scott Base development project has undergone under the previous Government, 2020-2023.

Hon Grant Robertson: Who didn’t fund it properly, eh?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, he’s walking right into it. He’s leading with his chin—he wants to know how did it start off. Well, here we go. That is on top of the nearly $200 million in additional funding the Labour Cabinet approved in December 2022. We’re looking into the situation with urgency and have sought advice as to why Antarctica New Zealand has not yet been able to reach an agreement with its preferred contractor. Here we are, four years on—nothing done, again.

Hon Grant Robertson: You said you were going to get $300 million in private funding. What happened to that—what happened to that?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We’ll get into that, keep asking supplementary questions—I’ve got it all worked out. And how the project can be brought back within the funding envelope that was originally agreed when somebody who was in charge knew what he was doing. We also have questions around Antarctica New Zealand’s management of the project and we intend to get answers to those questions in the weeks ahead, and also raise the issue of what happened to the private funding idea, or did the Minister of Finance just scare them off?

Jenny Marcroft: How much are the cost overruns, and what caused them?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Sadly, a repetitive story: in Budget 2019, at that stage, indicative costs of the redevelopment—listen to this—were $262 million, with Cabinet also deciding that Antarctica New Zealand would raise $50 million through private sponsorships.

Hon Grant Robertson: That’s right; what happened to that?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What happened to that was, of course, that one party, governing by itself—and what a mess that was; unbelievable—unleashed with no experience, no understanding of business, couldn’t run a corner dairy, and they did this. In April 2021, the previous Government—screaming out now—approved $344 million to cover the full cost of the redevelopment of Scott Base, and in December 2022, an additional funding package was approved, bringing the total Government commitment to—listen to this—$503 million. Just like that; doubled it. So on returning to Government, we were appalled to learn that the $250 million has doubled and if actions are not taken, it will continue to rise. The previously agreed $50 million sponsorship has also disappeared, but a decision we’re going to find, and get to the bottom of. We’ve now been advised that yet more additional funding may be required to complete the project.

Jenny Marcroft: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: Yeah, just before we go, you’ve got to moderate those answers. That’s a very long answer—I was struggling to stay with it. I represent the general public here.

Jenny Marcroft: What are the next steps?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Mr Speaker, I understand your qualification, but misery often takes a long time to spell out. Look, various options have been considered by Antarctica New Zealand. We’ve made it clear to officials that we will only consider options that are costed to remain within the overall project budget that was originally agreed, and as close as possible to the initial time line of delivery, because time costs money and we are concerned at the terrible waste and future potential delays.

Jenny Marcroft: Why is New Zealand redeveloping Scott Base?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It may not seem so important, but the reality is it’s a redevelopment project important to this country’s strategic national interests. We’re committed to ensuring Scott Base is an effective, safe, and sustainable base for globally significant science, working with partners such as the United States. The flow-on impacts to New Zealand and rest of the world of this scientific research is critically important, but the project must be completed in a cost-effective and timely manner which respects the hard-earned money of Kiwi taxpayers, and no more can outsiders think they can rip the taxpayer off because the people doing the auditing don’t know what they’re doing, like that man over there [Gestures to Hon Grant Robertson].

Question No. 10—Māori Development

10. to the Minister for Māori Development: Is he committed to the goal of achieving 1 million speakers of te reo Māori by 2040?

I’m committed to encouraging as many people as possible to learn and speak te reo Māori—te reo rangatira.

Hon Willie Jackson: Why is this Government attempting to cut courses, along with other Māori initiatives, then, that are designed to grow te reo speakers?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There are many ways for people to learn te reo Māori: on the marae, in the kāuta, and even here in te Whare Pāremata or at wānanga like Te Wānanga o Aotearoa.

Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t think the question was even addressed.

SPEAKER: Well, it certainly was addressed. The question was relating to how people might learn. You certainly got an answer.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you for that clarification, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Any time—any time.

Hon Willie Jackson: Has the Minister advocated to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to support or stop plans to reduce the pay of public service with te reo Māori expertise?

SPEAKER: You know how—you’ve got to get that accurate. I think you—

Hon Willie Jackson: I can do it again, Mr Speaker, no problem.

SPEAKER: Just have another shot at it.

Hon Willie Jackson: Has the Minister advocated to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to support or stop plans to reduce the pay of public service with te reo expertise—sorry, Mr Speaker, public servants?

SPEAKER: Oh, that wasn’t the bit—you got the other bit right.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Mr Speaker, can I please have that pātai read out again so I understand what it is?

SPEAKER: Yeah, most certainly. Sorry to interrupt you.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you again, Mr Speaker. Has the Minister advocated to the Minister of Finance, in terms of her strategy around stopping plans to reduce the pay of public service—public servants, I should say—with te reo Māori expertise?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We were elected to get the economy back on track, and are aspirational for Māori and New Zealanders. To the extent which I’m able to, I understand that the Government is reviewing all allowances across the Public Service.

Hon Willie Jackson: Is the Minister going to fight for Māori, or is he going to cower to the whims—

SPEAKER: No. No, you can’t do that.

Hon Willie Jackson: —of the Minister of Finance—

SPEAKER: No, Willie, sorry. Hon Willie Jackson, that’s an out-of-order question. You can have another go—get it in order.

Hon Willie Jackson: Can the Minister commit to Māori that he will not cut any further initiatives that are designed to preserve te reo?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’m committed to advocating and speaking te reo Māori every day.

Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. He didn’t even touch that question—didn’t even address it.

SPEAKER: Well, as you know—

Hon Willie Jackson: Come on, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: As you know—as you know—all Speakers sitting here will say that if someone answers a question, they are addressing it. That’s pretty clear in Speakers’ Rulings, all day long. As far as the—and I’ve been on the end of questions, feeling a little bit let down like yourself, but that’s none the less the answer that’s been given.

Hon Member: It’s not time for utu, Gerry.

SPEAKER: So the question—no, of course it’s not. Now, don’t get like that. Sorry—a private conversation there. So the Minister may wish to say a little more about ongoing intentions.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: E kaha ana au ki te tautoko i te anganga whakamua o te reo Māori; ki wiwi, ki wawa, ki tēnei Whare.

[I strongly support te reo Māori being spoken everywhere and in this House.]

Hon Shane Jones: Will the Minister, beyond te reo Māori, support pūeru Māori—art, weaving, and costume-making—given that Parliament has been presented with a headdress upon the leader of the Māori Party’s head—

SPEAKER: No, that’s out too.

Hon Shane Jones: —which looked like a muttonbird?

SPEAKER: No, no, sorry. Nice try; not flying.

Question No. 11—Education

11. to the Minister of Education: What reports has she received on student achievement?

The 2022 Programme for International Student Assessment results released this week show a decline in the performance of 15-year-old students in maths compared to 2018 and confirm the long-term trend of declining achievement in core subjects.

Katie Nimon: What do these results show?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: These results show us that our education system has continued to deliver declining outcomes for learners, but our Government has a plan to turn this around.

Katie Nimon: Does the Government have plans to change this?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: We certainly do. In our first hundred days, the coalition Government is moving with urgency. We are removing distractions from classrooms by banning cellphone use during the school day in order to lift engagement, achievement, and, importantly, wellbeing. We also will ensure students at primary school receive at least one hour of reading, writing, and maths throughout every day.

Katie Nimon: What else is the Government doing to turn around the declining levels of achievement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: This is just the very start. Our “Teaching the basics brilliantly” policy builds an important foundation to ensure young people receive the high-quality education they deserve, that allows them to live the life that they want. Our Government will ensure that we have a knowledge-rich curriculum, consistent measures of student progress, and structured literacy in every primary classroom.

Question No. 12—Foreign Affairs

12. to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Will he lead the Government to join the United Nations Secretary General, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the majority of New Zealanders according to a recent poll to call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza; and if not, why not?

In the eight weeks since Hamas unleashed its shocking terror on the people of Israel, targeting civilians including young children, we have witnessed a devastating level of human suffering and loss of life. As in today’s motion, we can all agree that a ceasefire—a permanent cessation of armed hostilities—would be the ultimate outcome we all seek. No one in this House wants this conflict in the Middle East, but for a durable ceasefire to be viable, the parties must take urgent steps towards establishing a ceasefire. We recognise, again, that that point is not straightforward. Simply calling for a ceasefire does not make one a reality. That’s why we are calling on all parties and all countries with influence in the region to take urgent steps towards establishing a ceasefire now, permanently.

Golriz Ghahraman: Does he acknowledge the deaths of over 16,000 Palestinians, more than 7,000 of whom are children, and that the disproportionate targeting of civilians can never constitute an exercise of the right to self-defence?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We are concerned about such reports. They raise serious questions about whether international humanitarian law is being fully observed. Accountability for breaches of international humanitarian law is crucial. Whether these have been committed requires a decision from a competent judicial body such as the International Criminal Court. It is not for me to comment on specific cases without the facts and evidence. We support the gathering of evidence of possible war crimes for an International Criminal Court process.

Golriz Ghahraman: Does he acknowledge the verified targeting of journalists, doctors, nurses, medical facilities, and entire civilian neighbourhoods, and that this can never constitute an exercise of the lawful right to self-defence?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Of course we acknowledge that, but we also wonder why there’s such an absence of the mass assault and massacre on 7 October this year. “Why are we hearing just one side of the story?”, is what a lot of people with balance and fairness want to know.

Golriz Ghahraman: Does he acknowledge the restriction by Israel of aid corridors into Gaza, which has left over 2 million people without adequate access to water, food, and life-saving medicine, and that cutting off of humanitarian aid to civilians is considered a war crime and therefore can never constitute the right to self-defence?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: For a trained lawyer, coming to a conclusion on a case before you’ve heard the evidence laid out for you is not a sound way of behaving. That’s what a legal training means. You first hear the evidence and then, against the principles of precedent, we then make a decision. We’re not going to make a judgment without any facts before we come to that judgment.

Golriz Ghahraman: When will Aotearoa take a strong international position calling for the prevention of genocide, as is our obligation pursuant to the genocide convention; to protect the rights of children, as is our obligation pursuant to the UN convention on the rights of children; and to act in the interests of global peace and security where war crimes are alleged?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As in the previous answers, when we have seen international bodies charged with the conclusions that might arise from such an investigation, coming to those conclusions and not beforehand by making allegations without, again, laying out the factual evidence or the balance of 7 October this year, when out of left field, with no information or forewarning at all, so many hundreds and hundreds of people have lost their lives, and then people were made hostages. Again, we want to see balance and fairness when we approach these international issues, and not just one side of the story.