Oral Questions

1. to the Associate Minister of Justice (Firearms): What information, if any, has she seen concerning firearms seizures?

Data released by Police under the Official Information Act has revealed that only 123 of the 6,571 firearms seized by police between January 2020 to November 2023 could be traced back to permits recorded on the police National Intelligence Application. The fact that the vast majority of seized firearms cannot be matched with a permit is deeply concerning and raises questions about the effectiveness of the firearms registry. These firearms that are legally held by gangs and criminals will not be captured by the firearms registry, yet law-abiding, licensed firearm owners still have to bear the burden of additional regulation.

💬 SPEAKER: Excuse me. Actually, that was a very long answer, so I’ll ask the Minister in future just to contain them slightly.

💬 Cameron Luxton: Was any other data released that calls into question the effectiveness of the firearms registry?

💬 Hon NICOLE McKEE: Yes, 65 percent of firearms seized by police in 2023, and 62 percent of firearms seized in 2022 had no recorded serial number. This suggests that criminals are using firearms that are either illegally imported, manufactured, or intentionally stripped of serial numbers, making them untraceable. The firearms registry would be unable to capture these illegally held or manufactured firearms.

💬 Cameron Luxton: What other data has she seen?

💬 Hon NICOLE McKEE: Ninety-four percent of people who were present at or subject to a search by police in which firearms were seized last year did not possess a firearms licence. The gangs and criminals are carrying and using firearms illegally, and they’re circumventing the firearms registry. Licensed firearms owners are not the problem. That’s why the Government is committed to targeting firearms illegally held by the gangs.

💬 Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Will the Minister bring an open mind to her review of the firearms registry, or has she an utterly predetermined approach to the usefulness of it?

💬 Hon NICOLE McKEE: The intention of the review is to be able to look at all data that is presented to those that are reviewing it. That would be an open mind.

💬 Cameron Luxton: Why has this Government committed to reviewing the firearms registry?

💬 Hon NICOLE McKEE: This Government has—in the ACT and National coalition agreement—committed to reviewing the firearms registry, starting before June 2024. The registry needs to be evaluated to determine whether it is improving public safety, in comparison to other options such as targeting illegally manufactured or imported firearms. We also need to determine if any changes to the registry could make it more effective in preventing firearms from falling into the hands of criminals. A comprehensive review will improve insights into the effectiveness of the current registry.

💬 SPEAKER: I appreciate that was a primary question to the Minister, but a little more concise approach in the future would be very helpful to the House’s fluid operation.

Question No. 2—Health

2. to the Associate Minister of Health: What are the Government’s plans in relation to Smokefree 2025?

The Government is committed to the smoke-free target of less than 5 percent of people smoking daily by 2025. Our plan is to repeal the 2022 smoke-free amendments that have not yet taken effect, namely reduced retailers, denicotisation, and prohibition to those born from 2009. We will also build on what currently works and is behind the recent dramatic decrease in smoking, and continue to work to prevent young people from starting smoking and vaping. In particular, we will work at education and cessation programmes, access to alternative products to aid quitting, and regulating access to related products. What’s also important is that measures are targeted to individuals and communities that will benefit the most.

💬 Tanya Unkovich: What particular challenges does the Government need to address to achieve this smoke-free target?

💬 Hon CASEY COSTELLO: New Zealand has done very well in reducing smoking. As of mid - last year, we were down to 284,000 daily smokers from 573,000 ten years ago. Smoking is nowhere as prevalent as it was and we’re dealing with a much smaller group, which is great news. The problem is we are dealing with a remaining group of long-term smokers who are addicted to nicotine, so we need an approach that focuses on them and understands their needs and helps them to quit. The progress we have made means there are clearly some current measures, such as vaping, that work, and I want to build on this and any other practical steps such as other products used around the world and targeted programmes that will help people stop smoking.

💬 Tanya Unkovich: Are there considerations other than health outcomes that the Minister needs to consider?

💬 Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Improving health outcomes is extremely important. However, all Government policies need to be able to work and they need to consider real-world impacts. We can’t just wish for good outcomes. That means we need to address the real problem we face, which is that current smokers are addicted to nicotine and we need to help them to quit rather than moving to a prohibitionist regime. Cutting supply doesn’t equate to reducing demand, and the last Government’s planned approach was also going to have consequences for retailers, crime, and the growth of the black market.

💬 SPEAKER: Supplementary question, the Hon Mark Mitchell—sorry, you don’t sit down until I’ve called you. Do you want a supp or not?

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order. I thought the question was over, but I can wait until—

💬 SPEAKER: I can’t hear you. Your mike’s not on.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: I thought the question was over. But if there’s a supp, I can wait till after the supp.

💬 SPEAKER: Oh, thank you, thank you—appreciate that.

💬 Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: With respect to the member’s proposals for other regulated products, are there any of those that would not increase the availability of tobacco and the profits of tobacco companies among her proposals?

💬 Hon CASEY COSTELLO: At this stage, there are no proposals, and I’m seeking advice broadly on a range of issues.

💬 Takutai Tarsh Kemp: Does she accept the Government’s modelling that suggests Māori will not reach the 5 percent national target of smoking prevalence until 2061?

💬 Hon CASEY COSTELLO: No, we don’t accept that modelling, and it was based on numbers that are not currently reflected.

💬 Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Given that smoking is the leading cause of premature death in Aotearoa, what is her Government’s strategy to rapidly address the inequity and accelerate smoking cessation among Māori to achieve nationwide targets?

💬 Hon CASEY COSTELLO: We’re completely committed to targeted programmes rather than the blanket approach of the previous Government and will focus on those groups with the greatest need.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it the Minister’s position that behind this policy is the wisdom of not imposing $8.6 billion of taxation upon Māori since 2011 when it comes to cigarette smoking or having people beaten up at supermarkets on a daily basis in ram raids, all sorts of illegalities, or the black market, but by following this policy we have taken ourselves to number one in the world?

💬 Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Yes, I completely agree with the Deputy Prime Minister.

Question No. 11 to Minister, 30 January—Amended Answer

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal statement to correct answers given during question time yesterday.

💬 SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? Please go ahead.

In answer to supplementary questions on question No. 11, I stated that the Government’s policy was for the 500 additional police to be delivered over the course of the term, which is three years. I should have been clearer: the Government’s policy is to deliver 500 new police in the first two years of the term. I was reflecting the significant challenges that Police face to drive that recruitment, but the Government is firmly committed to delivering on this target.

Point of order. Mr Speaker, I would ask you to reflect on whether corrections of answers are to correct misinformation that is given to the House or to reflect a change of position taken by a Minister. That was not an appropriate use of a correction of an answer.

💬 SPEAKER: That’s quite right, but it was a correction of an answer. I was here for those questions and heard the answers given yesterday, and that’s quite a different position; that’s a different answer that’s given. I don’t think it’s the right place, right now, to discuss the concept the member’s talking about, but the Standing Orders Committee might be.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Yes, and particularly given it’s back-to-school week, we actually stand by all of our actions, as I said yesterday, on education. Sadly, this has been a former Government that left us with 55 percent of our kids not going to school regularly. We want to call on all parents to make sure they get their kids to school this week so we can teach them the basics—an hour of maths, reading, and writing starting this year; a mobile phones ban; and an expert panel reviewing primary and intermediate school curriculum.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How can Mark Mitchell have been confused yesterday—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: We’ll give him an hour’s maths too.

💬 SPEAKER: Sorry, don’t speak while someone’s asking a question. So, please, start again, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How can Mark Mitchell have been confused yesterday, when he said on Monday: “Realistically, 500 new staff over the next three years is what we’re aiming for.”; he said on Tuesday, “The Government’s policy is to deliver 500 additional officers over the term of this Government, which is three years.”; and claimed previously that there had been a meeting in December of the three governing parties where they agreed to change the target from two years to three years?

💬 Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: There is no ambiguity around the target. We’re going to have 500 additional police in two years, and the Minister clarified that in his statement just before.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So was there a meeting in December amongst the three governing parties in which changing the target from two years to three years was discussed?

💬 Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his answer yesterday that he’s not aware of the Government requesting advice on freezing tobacco excise, given Casey Costello’s answer to question No. 9 yesterday that she had requested that advice?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. That is deliberate misinformation by Mr Hipkins. That was clarified in points of order yesterday and he’s back today, having ignored that, seeking to assert a falsity the second time around.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d encourage you to go and review the Hansard of the answer that was given yesterday where the Minister did answer to the question: “Yes.” The word “yes” was the very first part of her answer to the question that was asked by my colleague Dr Verrall.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I will review it, and so we’ll set it aside now. You have another supplementary?

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: No, no—I haven’t had an answer to that one yet.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, we’re setting it aside because I’m reviewing it. You can’t have it both ways. [Interruption] Ask the question again.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I’ll ask the question again. Does he stand by his answer yesterday that he was not aware of the Government requesting advice on freezing tobacco excise, given Casey Costello’s answer to question No. 9 yesterday that she had requested the advice?

💬 Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I was asked if the Minister had sought advice, I answered that I was not aware that she had, which was the case.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement that Casey Costello “would have given a bunch of different party policy documents to her officials.”?

💬 Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That is what I subsequently have understood since question time yesterday. Her office has clarified her approach, and that’s what I articulated this morning in media.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Can he assure this House that no person affiliated with the tobacco industry was involved in developing or writing those party policy documents that were given to officials?

💬 SPEAKER: He has no responsibility—sorry, Prime Minister?

💬 Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m not responsible for other parties.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: A point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: You haven’t heard from me yet. Just to be clear, the Prime Minister does not have responsibility in this House for party policy documents.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. If a Minister gives party policy documents to officials, then the Prime Minister is absolutely responsible to that. Documents given by Ministers to officials, they are, effectively, instructions from Ministers to their officials. The Prime Minister and Ministers are absolutely responsible for that.

💬 SPEAKER: In that context, the member is right. Point of order, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, it’s a supplementary question.

💬 SPEAKER: Oh, it’s a supplementary question? [Interruption] Wait on, wait on. Sorry. Please resume your seat. So we’re just getting a little bit mixed up here. There has been a question answered. It’s clarified that there is some aspect for the Prime Minister to answer, and that question should be answered before we have a further supplementary.

💬 Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, can he repeat the question?

💬 SPEAKER: Yep—third time.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Can he assure this House that no person affiliated with the tobacco industry was involved in developing or writing those party policy documents?

💬 Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t have responsibility for other party manifestos.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: I’ve got your point of order. I think the difficulty here is that if the party documents have been provided to officials to help formulate policy from this point, then there is a ministerial responsibility.

💬 Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. We’re into some difficulty here. We are getting into difficulty here, because although Mr Hipkins is of course completely correct that documents that are given to officials on behalf of the Government are the responsibility of Ministers, the creation of documents in a political party sense is not the responsibility of the Prime Minister. In particular, even in his capacity of leader of the National Party, he is not responsible for those if it’s related to a three-party Government. So we are getting into difficulty here, and there’s also the issue of awareness of all of that as well—so how on earth would the Prime Minister be able to comment with any degree of veracity around that?

💬 SPEAKER: Well—

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to that point of order, Mr Speaker—

💬 SPEAKER: Look, I just wanted to make a comment here. Firstly, I don’t think we are getting into difficulty. So the question is: if a party document is provided to officials, is it part of the official record, effectively? The answer is yes. If there is a question about a Minister’s knowledge of how that document got formulated—and that is the basis of the question today—that is a question that could be relatively easily answered. The member, actually, in his own point of order, made that point.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. What’s going on here—

💬 SPEAKER: No, hang on a minute. Just a minute, I haven’t dealt with this—finished here. Is he still going? OK. Point of order—sorry.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, this is to be helpful, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: The reality is there’s an element of information being made here with no evidence whatsoever. The Electoral Act requires—as we all know—parties to submit a full record, open and in front of the public and under the law, of where they got their party funding. That information is available to that member over there—

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: It’s not about funding.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: —yes, he does—but, no, he prefers to make these insinuations without a bare fact to back them up.

💬 SPEAKER: No, the point, though, is that the Prime Minister is being asked if he knows the full source of a policy document that was provided by another party.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, he didn’t say that; it went further than that.

💬 SPEAKER: It is the question, and that’s a relatively easy answer—yep.

💬 Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As Prime Minister, I’m unaware of what Ministers are actually asking their officials for advice.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is it his position as Prime Minister that Ministers should be presenting to officials party policy documents and giving them those documents as instructions for further advice to be prepared?

💬 Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I think is fantastic is we have an Associate Minister with delegation for reducing smoking. She’s incredibly focused on that goal, and she’s asked her officials for a range of advice to actually lower smoking in New Zealand. That’s a good thing.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister hasn’t addressed what is actually a very significant question. Generally, when Ministers give party policy documents to officials, it is an instruction for the officials to therefore implement that. I’ve asked him whether Ministers in his Government are giving party policy documents to officials and whether he is comfortable with that approach.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, there is a coalition agreement which is publicly available for people to see what the transfer of policy is. But the Prime Minister may like to answer.

💬 Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We campaigned on a set of policies; it’s right that officials would have those manifestos.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is New Zealand First’s policy on tobacco now the Government’s policy?

💬 Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So why would New Zealand First’s party policy document have been presented to officials as Government instruction?

💬 Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That’s not what I said. It’s not unreasonable that officials should actually see party political manifestos in consideration as they think about dreaming up policy advice that actually lowers smoking.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister not find it extraordinary that the Opposition that’s raising in the House today this issue nevertheless supported the very same party writing sound policy in 2018-19 which led to the biggest drop in the whole world of cigarette smoking? That’s the fact, isn’t it?

💬 Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think we’re incredibly proud of the lowering of smoking rates. It’s gone from 16.7 percent down to 8.6 percent and to 6.8 percent in the space of the last decade.

💬 SPEAKER: Right, well, we’ll just let the smoke clear, and we’ll have the Hon James Shaw.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

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

Yes, in the context they were given.

💬 Hon James Shaw: Does he stand by his joint statement with the Prime Ministers of Australia and Canada in relation to Gaza made on 13 December 2023 that he supports “urgent international efforts towards a sustainable ceasefire.”, and, if so, what specific actions has his Government taken since that date to secure a sustainable ceasefire?

💬 Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have joined with many companies calling for a sustainable ceasefire and we’ll continue to do so.

💬 Hon James Shaw: Is he aware that under article 1 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, New Zealand has an obligation to take action to prevent genocide before it occurs?

💬 Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m not sure the point of the question that the member is trying to ask or get to.

💬 Hon James Shaw: Point of order, Mr Speaker. To assist the Prime Minister, the point of the question was to ask if he was aware of article 1 of the convention.

💬 Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Personally not aware, but if he’d like to direct a specific question to the relevant Minister, I’m sure we could help.

💬 Hon James Shaw: What actions is the Government taking to meet its obligations under article 1 of the genocide convention in light of the recent ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that found a plausible risk of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza?

💬 Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It was a provisional finding, and it wasn’t a plausible risk.

💬 Hon James Shaw: Is the Prime Minister aware that the ICJ did find that there was a plausible risk of genocide, which would—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Excuse me; when a question is being asked, the House is silent. Start again.

💬 Hon James Shaw: Is he aware that the ICJ did find that there is a plausible risk of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza—

💬 Hon Chris Bishop: And not a genocide.

💬 Hon James Shaw: —and that—

💬 SPEAKER: Mr Bishop.

💬 Hon James Shaw: —and that that would trigger New Zealand’s obligations under article 1 of the convention to take action to prevent genocide before it occurs?

💬 Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The court did not make any findings that Israel has actually engaged in genocidal conduct.

💬 Hon James Shaw: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a difference between having found whether genocide has taken place or whether there is a plausible risk of genocide taking place, and that article 1 of the convention requires New Zealand to take action to prevent genocide before it occurs—i.e., when there is a plausible risk?

💬 Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said earlier, the court did not make any findings that Israel has actually engaged in genocidal conduct. That is part of a full and substantive hearing that will take place in subsequent months and years.

💬 Hon David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister believe that the casual, lazy misuse of a word as important as “genocide”—

💬 Hon Member: 30,000 people.

💬 Hon David Seymour: —is not only incorrect but offensive to those victims of actual genocide?

💬 SPEAKER: Just a minute. The next person who speaks while someone is asking a question will be in a little bit of trouble.

💬 Hon David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister believe that the casual, lazy misuse of the word “genocide” is not only incorrect but highly offensive to those many people who, tragically, throughout history were victims of actual genocide?

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I know you’ve adopted the flow approach for questions and answers, but that was a good example, I think, of the Standing Order that purports to prevent members from using epithets and words in their questions that are likely to lead to disorder. I think, you know, there must be a line somewhere around where those words are going to fuel disorder, because if any words can be used in a question, then there will be regular bouts of disorder in the House.

💬 Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order. Questions are required to be factual, and that was.

💬 SPEAKER: That’s true, except that the lead-in to that question, I’m sure, is what the Hon Grant Robertson was talking about. So what we might do is have the question again without all the epithets on the front of it.

💬 Hon David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister believe it is important to use a word as heavy as “genocide” accurately and only when fully justified by the facts, in order to respect those many victims throughout history who, tragically, have suffered from actual genocide?

💬 Steve Abel: Including the Palestinians right now, who are suffering from genocide.

💬 SPEAKER: That is not helpful. Who was calling out there? I didn’t see who it was. [Interruption] Well, can I ask you, Mr Abel, to please just contain yourself while people are asking a question. Sometimes we don’t like the questions—quite often, we don’t like the questions. Just about every day so far, I haven’t liked a lot of questions, but you’ve got to just let people have their say.

💬 Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m not sure which question I’m actually answering.

💬 SPEAKER: It’s the David Seymour question which we’ve had twice and we really don’t want a third time.

💬 Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, no; OK. Look, the issue here is there have been provisional measures that have been announced in the provisional ruling of the ICJ, and there is a further case that is continuing on, and I’m only going to respond to the provisional measures.

💬 Hon Marama Davidson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Just checking, with that question, the claim from South Africa is specifically related to preventing the crime of genocide, so putting it clear that that is not a casual misuse of language. The claim is to prevent the crime of genocide; that can be taken before the threshold is met. It’s about saying, “Don’t do genocide.”

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, look, a point of order shouldn’t be a place for a debate on issues like that.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on business confidence?

Earlier this month, the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) released its latest quarterly survey of business opinion. This survey showed a sharp pick-up in business confidence in the final quarter of 2023. NZIER says that while a net 10 percent of firms are expecting a worsening in general economic conditions over the coming months, this is a significant decrease from a net 49 percent in the previous quarter and a net 79 percent a year ago.

💬 Stuart Smith: What sorts of areas are firms feeling more confident in?

💬 Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The survey shows that firms are feeling positive about hiring and positive about investing in plant and machinery. The report says that “With a new Government formed in late November 2023, it appears that firms are now looking to invest.”

💬 Stuart Smith: What is Treasury’s outlook for the economy?

💬 Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’m advised that the economy is at or near the bottom of the economic cycle, and the outlook is for a slow and relatively subdued recovery, at least initially. In the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, Treasury forecast real GDP growth of 1.5 percent in the year to June 2024 and again in the year to June 2025. However, that is lower than expected population growth, so Treasury expects per person per capita GDP to decline in each of these years. The unemployment rate is also expected to rise to around 5 percent before beginning to fall again. Inflation will continue to fall and, as the NZIER survey shows, business confidence is increasing off a very low base.

💬 Stuart Smith: What is the Government doing to help build and improve the business environment?

💬 Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government’s 100-day plan contains a number of measures to improve the business environment. For example, the Government introduced legislation last year, which the House passed, to restore 90-day trial periods for all businesses. This provides much-needed flexibility in the workplace that benefits both workers and employers. The Government also introduced legislation, again which this House passed, to end Labour’s workplace bargaining regime that would have forced the views of some union workers on to all workers and all businesses in an industry. No wonder business confidence has risen.

Question No. 6—Social Development and Employment

6. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her decision to index benefits to inflation?

Yes.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she agree with her statement, “main benefits will be higher next year than they would have been if we had retained the current index to wage growth.”, and will she make the commitment to beneficiaries that they will be better off under her decision to index main benefits to inflation?

💬 Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Beneficiaries will be better off under our Government because we will be dealing with the cost of living crisis. We will be growing the economy to support more job opportunities as well as improving health and education.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How can she say beneficiaries will be better off, when Treasury is forecasting annual wage growth to be 5.1 percent in June 2025 compared with the forecasted 2.5 percent rate of inflation in June 2025, where wage growth clearly outstrips inflation?

💬 Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Forecasts are exactly that. We’ll make decisions based on good data, and we made a commitment ahead of the election that we will index increases to benefits to inflation. That protects the real purchasing power of those on welfare.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What advice has she received on the child poverty implications for reversing the indexation of benefits from wages to inflation, and what is that advice?

💬 Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’ve received a large amount of advice around child poverty reduction, including the need to reduce the number of children in benefit-dependent households and how we make sure that they are better off.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she think snatching money away from the most vulnerable New Zealanders to pay for tax cuts is morally acceptable?

💬 Hon LOUISE UPSTON: That member is incorrect. What this Government is doing is providing certainty for all of those on welfare that benefit increases to inflation—which is the same way it’s been done for 31 out of the last 35 years—will protect their purchasing power, which is absolutely critical in a cost of living crisis that that member contributed to.

Question No. 7—Social Development and Employment

7. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports and forecasts, if any, has she seen on the number of people receiving the jobseeker support benefit?

There are now nearly 190,000 New Zealanders on the jobseeker benefit, meaning almost 90,000 more compared to September 2017. This includes an increase of 20,000 in the last year alone. The fact that jobseeker benefit numbers consistently increased during prolonged periods of widespread labour shortages means the welfare system has not done enough to shift people into work. Benefit dependency is a major challenge our Government must and will tackle, as these figures show. We will help people move from welfare into work, so people have more opportunities.

💬 Dr Hamish Campbell: What reports has the Minister seen on the number of 18- to 24-year-olds on the jobseeker benefit, and why is the coalition Government strongly focused on supporting young people into work?

💬 Hon LOUISE UPSTON: There are now 40,000 people aged 18 to 24 on the jobseeker benefit. This represents an increase of 16,000 people, or a 66 percent increase, compared to six years ago. This is important, because the earlier someone moves on to benefit, the greater the risk they become dependent on welfare. Young people under the age of 25 on welfare are estimated, on average, to spend 21.3 years on benefit. By acting sooner to help at-risk young adults, we will break vicious benefit-dependency cycles.

💬 Dr Hamish Campbell: What reports has the Minister seen on the number of children growing up in benefit households, and what’s the implications of this data?

💬 Hon LOUISE UPSTON: There are now 222,000 children growing up in benefit-dependent households, an increase of 44,000 compared to six years ago. Benefit dependency affects not only those trapped on benefits but also their children, whose outcomes are worse when they grow up in benefit-dependent households. We owe it to both adults and children to do more to improve their prospects.

💬 Dr Hamish Campbell: What forecasts has the Minister seen about the number of people on the jobseeker benefit if we continue the same welfare approach?

💬 Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Concerningly, forecasts predict that by January 2025, there will be 198,500 people on the jobseeker benefit. The current welfare system settings are not helping New Zealanders to reap the opportunities and rewards that work provides. Even though we have a challenging economic environment, we are not content to stand by and allow New Zealanders to languish on welfare, and watch their potential be wasted.

💬 Dr Hamish Campbell: Will the coalition Government aim to reduce the number of people on the jobseeker benefit, and, if so, why?

💬 Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Of course, yes. The coalition Government believes a job is the best way out of dependence, best path to independence, and greater opportunities. We will be working hard to help people into work. We will be making changes to the welfare system to enable New Zealanders to reap the opportunities and rewards that work brings.

Question No. 8—Health

8. to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Yes, in particular those that relate to my absolute commitment to the Smokefree 2025 targets and to providing practical, targeted help so that smokers who are addicted to nicotine can stop.

💬 Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did she say in the House yesterday that her comments to media were “truthful at the time” because “Being offered something and asking for something are two separate matters.” when the document she signed on 20 December shows that she both initiated the advice and accepted the offer to provide that advice by circling an option for further advice on freezing tobacco excise tax?

💬 Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Mr Speaker, I apologise if this answer is a long-worded answer, but it is an answer around process so I think it’s important to clarify what actually happened. When I received this delegation, I provided a range of information to officials, including things like Hansard records and previous policy positions around smoke-free and vaping to help guide conversations. The health paper came back setting out a number of areas on which I could be provided advice, and I marked that I wanted advice on all of them as I consider it is important to be broadly informed before making decisions. That health briefing referred to proposals and notes. They were not my proposals, to be clear. They were not things that I had written. This was general information I had provided to officials, and I’m sure they can verify this. I haven’t yet received any of that advice, and I certainly did not specifically request a proposal on excise freeze.

💬 Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did the Minister say yesterday that the truthfulness of her statement rested on a distinction between being offered and asking for advice, when the evidence shows she did both?

💬 Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I think I’ve answered the question.

💬 Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does she agree with the Prime Minister, who Radio New Zealand reported as having said yesterday that the Government will not be pausing increases to tobacco excise tax?

💬 Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Of course I agree with the Prime Minister, and it is advice that we are considering, and when we receive that advice we will make informed decisions.

💬 Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Can the Minister clarify: is the Prime Minister correct that the Government will not be pausing increases to tobacco excise tax, or is she still considering advice on that matter the Prime Minister has ruled out?

💬 Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I think I’ve answered the question, but I am committed to receiving broad advice, and we will make recommendations on the best options to enable people to quit smoking.

Tākuta Ferris: Does she agree that dropping cancer screening for Māori by 10 years is an equitable approach to address the inequity that exists for Māori with cancer; if not, what is her Government proposing to address this inequity that Māori have faced for decades?

💬 Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I’m absolutely committed, which is the reason we do not want a broad-brush approach; we want targeted campaigns that will enable the most marginalised and most vulnerable to quit smoking.

💬 SPEAKER: [Interruption] We’re now quiet—we’re now quiet. We’re now quiet—there’s a question being asked.

Question No. 9—Police

9. to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has he seen on gang convoys?

I was pleased to see police’s proactive enforcement response to a gang convoy through Whakatāne last year, which included a response by the Eagle helicopter, to ensure that the rights of law-abiding citizens to move about their towns freely are protected over and above the rights of gang members who choose to block roads, intimidate people, and break the law. Police arrested 15 people, of which 14 were associates or patched gang members. I’m proud of the great work that our police do every day to clamp down on activity that puts the public at risk, and, while there is more work to be done, the public can expect to see more of this proactive and positive enforcement action.

💬 Dana Kirkpatrick: How did the reports that he’s seen contrast with earlier reports of gang convoys?

💬 Hon MARK MITCHELL: The people of the eastern bay do not need long memories to remember the appalling scenes in Ōpōtiki earlier last year. The town of Ōpōtiki was taken over for several days, during which images of patched gang members rolling through the town, flagrantly breaking laws, closing down roads, and preventing law-abiding members of the public going about their daily business were broadcast across the country. At that time, schools were closed and the public felt extremely unsafe. Having visited shortly afterward, that was reflected very clear to me by the locals there, and I’m proud that, already, these people who did feel unsafe have been able to see such a marked change in response from police in terms of an increased gang presence in Whakatāne.

💬 Dana Kirkpatrick: What feedback has he had from locals about police’s approach to the gang convoys?

💬 Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, the outstanding local MP has been very proactive in reflecting to me the positive feedback that she has had from her community when it comes to the recent convoy in Whakatāne. In addition, I’ve continued to receive positive feedback in relation to the change in approach that started with the convoy through to Foxton late last year. I’m proud to be the Minister of Police in a Government that takes public safety seriously and that the public can already see is making a difference—that is, after six years of gang members operating with a sense of impunity.

💬 Dana Kirkpatrick: What further work is under way to ensure that law-abiding citizens have their right to freedom of movement protected over gangs?

💬 Hon MARK MITCHELL: As part of the Government’s hundred-day plan, work is under way on banning gang patches and insignia in public, as well as dispersal notices and consorting prohibition notices. These new tools will enhance police’s ability to break up large gang gatherings and convoys, and will go a long way to sending the very clear message that our police are in control, not the gangs. This is a Government that takes public safety seriously, and we’ll work hard to continue to improve that. After six years of chaos, we know this is a big task but we are determined to do it.

Question No. 10—Police

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

Yes.

💬 Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with the Prime Minister: “[And so] there were conversations last night as you’d expect after Mark’s remarks. And we spoke with Mark last night, but that’s our commitment.”; if so, who spoke with him?

💬 Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes.

💬 Hon Ginny Andersen: Is it correct that, as reported by Newsroom, a meeting was held between coalition parties in December last year and it was agreed to change the delivery of 500 more police over two years to three years?

💬 Hon MARK MITCHELL: No.

💬 Hon Ginny Andersen: Is the Deputy Prime Minister correct that a meeting was held last night between the National Party’s chief of staff and New Zealand First’s chief of staff, and at that meeting it was agreed that the Government would return to delivering 500 more police in two years?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. I know where this question is going. It’s based on an interview I just did on the way over, and that’s not what I said. I said I wasn’t at the meeting. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Just one at a time. So is that the end of that? Thank you. I’m sure that the member has taken that statement to the House, effectively, on board.

💬 Hon James Shaw: To the point of order. That was one of a series of points of order that have been raised by the Deputy Prime Minister that have nothing to do with points of order or Standing Orders. I would ask if we could constrain points of order to points of order as relates to the Standing Orders, as opposed to debating points.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I thank you very much for the advice to the Chair. I’ll take it on board.

💬 Hon Ginny Andersen: Can I ask the question again?

💬 SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?

💬 Hon Ginny Andersen: Well, I didn’t get an answer to the question.

💬 SPEAKER: Start the question again because it was interrupted.

💬 Hon Ginny Andersen: Just speaking to the point of order. That—

💬 SPEAKER: Well, are you speaking to the point of order or not?

💬 Hon Ginny Andersen: I’ll just say the question again. Is the Deputy Prime Minister correct that a meeting was held last night between the National Party’s chief of staff and New Zealand First’s chief of staff, and at that meeting it was agreed that the Government would return to delivering 500 more police within two years?

💬 Hon MARK MITCHELL: I’ve got no knowledge. You’d have to ask the Deputy Prime Minister.

💬 Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that “Mark could have expressed himself better”, and, if so, is the reason he’s struggling to express himself because a 6.5 percent cut to the police front line is unexplainable?

💬 Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I agree with what the Prime Minister said, so yes to the first part; no to the second.

💬 SPEAKER: No, that’s it. The allocation is all over. [Interruption] Excuse me.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Like taking candy.

💬 SPEAKER: No, don’t push it. It’s very difficult when a senior member like that puts me in a terrible position.

Question No. 11—Environment

11. to the Minister for the Environment: Is she concerned about how many rivers, lakes, and beaches across the country were too polluted to swim in or gather food from over the summer?

Yes, I am concerned, including with the fact that more than 20 beaches in Auckland in December were unswimmable because of human sewage, which reinforces that polluted rivers, lakes, and beaches are an issue to be addressed by all New Zealanders, both rural and urban. There are, of course, different causes of pollution that range from land use, wild animals, and human waste from infrastructure failures. Pollution occurs in both urban and rural areas, but the evidence does show that urban water bodies are in the poorest state. It is deeply disappointing that six years of the previous Government, Labour-Greens, did not address this, but we are determined to get this right. This Government is committed to improving freshwater quality for the benefit of all, and to do this we need sensible and pragmatic environmental rules. I’m also very pleased to tell you that the beach in Riverton, Southland—the “riviera of the south”—was outstanding all summer.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, can we just keep those primary answers just a little more concise in the future?

💬 Lan Pham: Has she read the open letter last month from 51 freshwater experts and leaders that states: “New Zealand’s rivers, lakes and aquifers are in a dire state.”, and, “If you proceed with your proposals to undo the country’s freshwater policy, they will only get worse.”?

💬 Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Yes, indeed I have read that letter from 50-plus freshwater scientists and experts, and I acknowledge the member’s own expertise in this area. There will always be a range of interests and views from academics, from scientists, from commercial and recreation users, and from iwi.

💬 Lan Pham: Why, then, did the Government delay freshwater improvements already in progress by pushing out the deadline for regional council plans to 2027?

💬 Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The Government considers that there needs to be a rebalance of Te Mana o te Wai and a rewriting of the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management to ensure that it is fit for purpose and that it achieves genuine outcomes.

💬 Lan Pham: Does the Minister agree that progressing and upholding of Te Mana o te Wai would help achieve those outcomes?

💬 Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Te Mana o te Wai is not in consideration. It is the hierarchy of the obligations that we consider needs to be relooked at and rebalanced.

💬 Lan Pham: What assurances, if any, can she provide to Kiwis—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: No, sorry, just wait a minute. Both sides—a lot of talking while someone’s trying to answer a question. It’s the one thing that I will be quite strict on, so today is the most liberal day we’re going to have in this regard. Please, Lan Pham, if you would ask your question again.

💬 Lan Pham: What assurances, if any, can she provide to Kiwis that their local waterway will be safe to swim in, when 45 percent of the total river length in Aotearoa is currently unswimmable according to the Ministry for the Environment?

💬 Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: We agree that the past six years have not addressed this sufficiently. The Government is committed to replacing the national policy statement for fresh water. We are committed to improving the quality of fresh water.

💬 Lan Pham: Will she commit to ensuring that any changes to freshwater regulations are informed by scientific evidence on the health of New Zealand’s waterways?

💬 Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I can assure the member that we will be consulting widely. We will be consulting with academics, with scientists, with iwi, and with commercial and recreational users. So we will consult widely and take a balanced approach to ensure that we come up with workable solutions.

Question No. 12—Trade

12. to the Minister for Trade: What steps is he undertaking to progress the New Zealand-European Union Free Trade Agreement?

Today, the coalition Government will have with the House the first reading of the implementation legislation to start the process to quickly implement the New Zealand - EU free-trade agreement (FTA). We will progress quickly with the implementation of this bill so that New Zealand exporters can take advantage of its benefits as soon as possible. You see, the European Union has already completed its part of the ratification process before New Zealand. New Zealand exporters are waiting on the New Zealand Parliament to complete the process so that the agreement can enter into force. This coalition Government is moving quickly so that exporters, particularly in provincial New Zealand, can benefit from tariff reductions of up to $100 million, something that could have been done last year if the last Government had introduced the bill and got it through before the election.

Tim van de Molen: Why is this deal so important to New Zealand exporters?

💬 Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, until now, many New Zealand products have been, effectively, locked out of the EU market due to high tariffs and restrictive quotas. For instance, duties on mānuka honey production will reduce by 17.3 percent to 0; the kiwifruit growers benefit from tariff savings of $37 million on entry into force. The FTA finally levels the playing field for Kiwi businesses exporting to the EU, where many of their key competitors already have competitive access. These savings would’ve benefited New Zealand exporters had the last Government introduced legislation and got it through before the last election.

Tim van de Molen: What else does the FTA deliver for New Zealand exporters?

💬 Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, when fully implemented, the FTA is set to provide an annual boost to our GDP of up to $1.4 billion and to our exports to the EU by up to $1.8 billion each year. For the first day of entry into force, 91 percent of New Zealand’s current goods trade into the EU are duty-free, increasing to 97 percent. Unfortunately, the commercially meaningful gains that the dairy and red meat sector expected by our farmers were not delivered in this deal. Access will not be fully liberalised for these products, but quotas do create some additional market access on improvement of status quo. Overall, the FTA creates jobs and grows wealth for all New Zealanders, which is why we want to get it into force as quickly as possible.

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: When does the Minister expect to sign the free-trade agreement with India?

💬 Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, long before that Minister would’ve when he was in Government, because the Labour Party said it wasn’t a priority, a deal wasn’t being done. I would say, however, there is great interest across New Zealand, of all New Zealanders, in a Government looking out on the world stage, and I know that that member is very keen to join the rest of his colleagues who have left the Parliament on the world stage soon.

Tim van de Molen: What are some of the specific benefits of this deal for the agricultural sector?

💬 Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, a number of key agricultural products will benefit from significant tariff savings from day one of the agreement: 99.9 percent of New Zealand’s current horticultural trade will enter the EU tariff-free at the entry into force—a tariff saving of $46 million for our growers. Tariffs will be eliminated immediately on kiwifruit, onions, apples, and other hort products; 99.5 percent of New Zealand’s current fish and seafood trade will enter the EU tariff-free from day one, which is why the coalition Government wants to so urgently get this agreement into force. This is a Government of action, not talk.