Oral Questions

1. to the Prime Minister: What update can he provide on the coalition Government’s commitment to Gumboot Friday?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: The coalition Government announced yesterday that Budget 2024 will provide $24 million over four years, contracting the I Am Hope Foundation to provide under-25-year-olds with free counselling services through the Gumboot Friday initiative. This funding was a commitment made under the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement. Gumboot Friday helps youth with mental health needs—

💬 Hon Member: What’s your procurement process?

—and you, if you’d like—to have access to counselling services earlier. This funding will help Gumboot Friday give more than 15,000 young New Zealanders access to free mental health counselling services each year. This is a serious investment in the front-line service that has a proven record of delivering to the young people who need help the most.

💬 Tanya Unkovich: Why is investing in this grassroots organisation so important for young New Zealanders?

This Government is focused on investing in our front-line services that will deliver real results. For every $1 invested in I Am Hope, it results in a social return to New Zealand of $5.70. This is a grassroots organisation that works and delivers results. I Am Hope has over 500 accredited counsellors and, with this funding, 300 more are on the way. This is a common-sense investment, and by providing better access to targeted, faster intervention now, youth will get the help they need sooner.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he stand by his decision to appoint Todd Stephenson MP as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Associate Minister of Health (Pharmac)?

Yes.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How were Todd Stephenson’s conflicts of interest managed in respect to his shares in Johnson and Johnson, Chimeric Therapeutics, and Commonwealth Serum Laboratories—all being pharmaceutical companies that stand to benefit from Pharmac’s decision-making powers?

Appropriately and properly.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Was Todd Stephenson involved in writing the letter of expectations to the board chair of Pharmac?

With respect to that questioner, that answer does not belong with me; it belongs with the Minister in charge, and I’m happy to redirect it, because at a certain level of—

💬 Hon Ginny Andersen: You are the Prime Minister.

Beg your pardon? No, with the greatest respect, the Prime Minister has Ministers to help him. That’s the difference on this side of the House: they’re not one-man bands that are having their captain’s choice taken off them, which happened yesterday with another political party. No, no, we don’t have a captain’s choice over here. We actually consult and we cooperate, and when a person like Mr Seymour is assigned a responsibility, we respect that.

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. If the Acting Prime Minister doesn’t know, then that’s all well and good and he should perhaps say so, but I’m not sure that’s the responsibility of someone else when the Prime Minister ultimately has full responsibility for all Ministers and their actions.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, that’s true, but as I’ve said before, when you ask a question that’s as general as “Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?”, then it would be an impossibility for the Prime Minister to know absolutely everything. I’m also aware of how the process goes around the construction of letters of intent, and I think the Prime Minister’s answers today are perfectly acceptable in that regard.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is it acceptable that the Minister’s main way of expressing his views to Pharmac were drafted in part by a person who holds shares in pharmaceutical companies?

The third answer given to that questioner covers the issue. I said that those issues were handled properly and appropriately.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is it a conflict of interest for Todd Stephenson to be at meetings with Pharmac where details of drug funding will have been discussed while Mr Stephenson holds shares in pharmaceutical companies?

With respect, I don’t think the questioner understands the actual construction of Pharmac and the independence of that organisation. We’ve all made—

💬 Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Do you? Why does your under-secretary go?

Well, with the greatest respect, I think I understand it far better than you—you’ve only been here five minutes. Ha, ha! No, look, this is not a full day’s work to just come and ask a whole lot of stupid questions in Parliament, to shout out, and then then go home and call it work. Some of us work seven days a week, and that sort of behaviour—[Interruption] No, Mr—from the North Shore, don’t wave out to me. Don’t wave out to me. My point is we all know how Pharmac operates, and its operation is independent. Our job is to find it the resources, and that’s what we’re doing.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will he maintain the standards that New Zealanders expect of their Government and stand down Mr Stephenson from his role, or is he unwilling to challenge David Seymour’s exploitation of a loophole which allows a pharmaceutical industry plant to assist the Minister responsible for Pharmac?

No, I think there is a—

💬 Hon Peeni Henare: Well, he’s not here for the arts! [Laughter]

💬 SPEAKER: All right. OK, that’s enough—we’ll hear the answer in silence.

There is an answer to that questioner, which is that we reject the premises on which the question is based. But let’s go further here. That questioner now made an allegation and without any evidence, any proof, in this House, and is defaming someone without any care for her responsibility.

Chlöe Swarbrick: You know a bit about that.

Yes, I do, and I’ve won a lot of cases—far more than you’ll ever win, right? I’ve won $7.5 million of cases, so I might know something about it. She’s defaming someone who’s got no chance to defend himself.

💬 SPEAKER: I also just said we would hear the answer in silence, and two people were very, very rowdy during that time. Don’t do that again while we are required to be quiet.

Question No. 3—Immigration

3. to the Associate Minister of Immigration: Is she committed to ensuring that disabled asylum seekers and refugees face no barriers to obtaining residency on the basis of their disability; if so, why are their residency applications tested against the “acceptable standards of health” requirements?

New Zealand has made international commitments to refugees and protected persons that we are meeting. Those services are provided by a team of dedicated, amazing hard workers who support the refugee programme. Those who have successfully claimed asylum in New Zealand only need to provide a limited medical certificate in their residence applications. This certificate only assesses a small number of the most serious health conditions. Health requirements help us identify and manage the health needs of those refugees and their protection status and understands the support they need when settling in New Zealand as well as considering costs to the public health system. I am advised that between 16 April 2014 and 16 April 2024 only two residence applications for recognised refugee or protected persons were declined based on determinations that an applicant did not meet the acceptable health standards requirements. These applications in both cases were subsequently granted their residence by ministerial intervention.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why, then, have a policy that creates barriers and hurdles for the proper resettling of asylum seekers and refugees when some of the events that they’re escaping create those serious health conditions that she just spoke about?

I refute the claim that this creates barriers. What it is actually doing is ensuring that those medical needs can be fully assessed and services provided to meet those needs. As I’ve said, there have been none in the last two years that have resulted in a barrier, and, in addition, there is a separate medical refugee quota category of 75 places per annum, which will accommodate those high needs that would not meet the criteria.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she accept that at least 46 people have also been declined on medical grounds across the refugee quota programme and the refugee quota family reunification category, and, if so, does she think that is fair or justified?

As has been stated on numerous occasions, in this category we have to balance the needs of New Zealand’s health system and ensure that we are able to meet the needs of those people, and in some circumstances there will be considerations that will mean they don’t meet the criteria. That is not a barrier for disabled people; that is a barrier for health considerations.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she think a refugee with renal issues should face delays to be able to properly resettle in Aotearoa after escaping genocide, and, if not, why is the acceptable standard-of-health policy applied to refugees seeking residency visas?

All I can say, again, is that there is a limited health assessment applied to assess the needs of those who are entering the refugee programme. That assessment will stand and is an important part of the process.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Can she confirm, then, that people facing issues such as kidney failure could face delays for residency applications that could delay their proper resettlement in Aotearoa, or for conditions such as cancer?

Mr Speaker, it’s unclear whether he’s asking about the refugee programme or a migration programme, but, as I’ve stated—yet again—there is a process that needs to be followed to ensure that the medical needs of those who are in the programme are assessed.

Question No. 4—Transport

4. to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made on roadside drug testing?

On Monday, I announced that our Government will introduce legislation this year to enable roadside drug testing as part of our commitment to improve road safety and restore law and order. Oral fluid testing is common overseas and it’s an easy way to screen for drugs at the roadside. Our approach will bring New Zealand in line with Australian legislation and will remove unnecessary barriers that have delayed the fight against drug-driving.

💬 Grant McCallum: What advice has he seen on the impacts of drug-driving?

💬 Hon SIMEON BROWN: Alcohol and drugs are the number one contributing factor in fatal road crashes in New Zealand. In 2022 alone, alcohol and drugs were contributors to 200 fatal crashes on our roads. That is why our Government is introducing legislation to enable roadside drug testing, will set targets for police to undertake 50,000 oral fluid tests each year.

💬 Grant McCallum: What reports has he seen on roadside drug testing in New Zealand?

💬 Hon SIMEON BROWN: I have seen reports that despite legislation being passed in 2022 to enable roadside drug testing, roadside testing has not been rolled out as the legislation required the test to be suitable for evidentiary purposes and not just for a screening intent. The Police Association said this was “really disappointing” and the Automobile Association said that the failed roll-out was “another blow to road safety”. Our Government will pass workable legislation to target the highest contributing factors to fatal road crashes.

💬 Grant McCallum: How will the Government’s legislation differ to roadside drug-testing legislation passed in 2022?

💬 Hon SIMEON BROWN: Our roadside drug-testing regime will use oral fluid testing devices at the roadside, for screening purposes. If two oral fluid tests are positive, then an oral fluid sample will be tested in a laboratory for evidentiary purposes. This differs to the previous roadside drug-testing regime, which required tests at the roadside to be used for evidentiary purposes and resulted in police being unable to roll out roadside drug testing.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement that “our tax cuts will reduce inflationary pressures”?

on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Only seven sleeps to go till the Budget, and, yes, as the member knows, I was paraphrasing an ANZ preview of the Budget that said, “We think that the net impact of tax and spending cuts are likely to be marginally contractionary on balance, in so far as households save a portion of their tax relief or spend a greater proportion on imports than the Government would have.” I agree with ANZ’s economists. I wouldn’t want to overstate the impact, but since tax relief will be fully paid for, it should, at the margin, take a bit of pressure off inflation, given that households may save some of their tax relief rather than spend it all.

💬 Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the Reserve Bank that “Interest rates may have to remain at a restrictive level for longer than anticipated in the February Monetary Policy Statement.”; if not, why not?

Well, on behalf of the Minister, I agree with the Reserve Bank, which said in their Monetary Policy Statement, “Any impact of potential changes in the forthcoming Budget to Government spending or private spending due to tax cuts remains to be assessed.” It’s seven more days till the Budget. Not long to go.

💬 Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the Reserve Bank that the reduction in Government spending from her job cuts is less deflationary than expected; if not, why not?

On behalf of the Minister, the Reserve Bank made it very clear in their Monetary Policy Statement that the impact of the forthcoming Budget is yet to be seen because it hasn’t yet been released. So I just say to the members on the other side of the House: seven days to go—seven more sleeps. And I have great news for the hard-working taxpayers of New Zealand that tax relief is coming in this year’s Budget.

💬 Hon Barbara Edmonds: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister spoke in relation to Reserve Bank comments made in relation to the fact that they hadn’t included the Budget information as part of this Monetary Policy Statement. My question actually was in reference to fiscal policy that they have decided and to comments that the Reserve Bank conveyed about those past policy decisions the Government has made.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, in so much as the Minister is able to answer, he might like to elucidate a bit on that answer.

Well, on behalf of the Minister, as the Monetary Policy Statement has said, a number of the decisions that have been made in the Budget have not been assessed yet because, ultimately, the Budget hasn’t yet been released. And, in relation to the issues that have been, the ANZ has made it very clear that when it comes to tax relief, which is what the purpose of that question was, it’s likely to be contractionary.

💬 Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she aware that the higher inflation expected by the Reserve Bank doesn’t even factor in her inflationary tax cuts?

Well, I don’t know whether the member has read the Monetary Policy Statement. I’ll quote it again, on behalf of the Minister: “Any impact of potential changes in the forthcoming Budget to Government spending or private spending due to tax cuts remain to be assessed.” Only seven more sleeps to go.

💬 Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with Treasury advice that a revenue package that is fiscally neutral “may still have an inflationary impact given lower-income individuals are likely to have a higher marginal propensity to consume out of additional income”; if not, why not?

Well, on behalf of the Minister, Treasury has been advising that their modelling suggests the impact of tax reductions on surplus spending is likely to modestly reduce pressure on interest rates due to the fact that not everybody will spend all of that money. Some of it may be saved. That is in line with exactly the statement I made at the beginning from the ANZ. But what I just want to point out to the House is that that party on the other side of the House hate tax cuts and will always vote against them.

💬 Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why must New Zealand families pay higher interest rates for longer because of her bad decisions?

💬 SPEAKER: I’d invite the member to re-ask the question and bring it into line with the Standing Orders.

💬 Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why must New Zealand families pay higher interest rates for longer because of the information provided to the Reserve Bank, on which they have provided the Monetary Policy Statement?

Well, it’s seven days to go—seven sleeps to go—until the Budget. But what I would just say to members on the other side: they will say and do anything to oppose tax relief for working New Zealanders. They cancelled the last tax relief in 2017 that was last legislated. They hate the idea of letting New Zealanders keep more of what they earn, and New Zealanders rejected that at the last election.

Question No. 6—Agriculture

6. to the Minister of Agriculture: What actions has the Government taken to reduce regulatory burden on the primary sector?

Today, the Government has introduced the first Resource Management Act amendment bill to the House, which will start to deliver on our commitment to reduce red tape and cost for farmers by changing national freshwater regulations. The bill proposes a range of changes that will reduce regulatory burden that have been holding back our rural sector and imposing unnecessary and significant on-farm compliance costs on to our world-leading farmers, whilst focusing on better environmental outcomes.

💬 Suze Redmayne: What are some of the changes in the bill that will help farmers?

💬 Hon TODD McCLAY: We’ve heard concerns from the farm gate and are making sensible changes to allow farmers to get on with the job. We’re proposing to remove the problematic and ineffective low-slope map, which imposes a significant cost for minimal environmental benefits, especially for low-stock farms. Regional councils and farmers are best to determine where stock need to be excluded, based upon risk. The focus is on farm-level and regionally suitable solutions, which will ultimately reduce cost for farmers and be better for the environment.

💬 Suze Redmayne: How else will this bill reduce regulatory burden?

💬 Hon TODD McCLAY: We’ll also be repealing ineffective intensive winter grazing regulations in time for the 2025 season. Effective non-regulatory measures are already in place to support the continued improvement of winter grazing practices, with sector groups confirming their continued and collective commitment to working alongside farmers and regional councils to ensure good outcomes. Where councils have already adopted their own rules, these will remain in place. We’ve also heard how Te Mana o te Wai hierarchy of obligations is being applied inconsistently, so we’ll be starting the process to rebalance the rights of all water users in respect of consent applications.

💬 Suze Redmayne: Why is the Government making these changes?

💬 Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, regulations need to be fit for purpose and not place unnecessary costs on our most productive sectors. By improving primary sector efficiency, we can boost our largest export sector and deliver for all New Zealanders. We want an efficient primary sector that works with Government for better environmental outcomes. There’s a lot more work to do, but these changes are an important first step in our commitment to get Wellington out of farming.

Question No. 7—Housing

7 to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement that “The Government has made a deliberate choice to reprioritise low value expenditure to more important policy priorities”; if so, does he consider the provision of transitional housing places “low value expenditure”?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, please, will you read that question very, very, carefully again, because it simply doesn’t make any sense. Read it.

Speaking to the point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: Just a minute. I do as I’m told—I’ll read it.

I could read it slower for him if he wants.

💬 SPEAKER: That’s very good of you to make the offer. These questions are considered by the Clerk’s Office when they’re lodged. I have just read it, and I think it’s pretty clear what he’s asking.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, could you please explain to me—

💬 SPEAKER: Are you speaking to the point of order?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: —this is a point of order—because with “if so, does he consider the provision of transitional housing places ‘low value expenditure’?”, how does that make any logic, grammar, and any other way, common sense as a question?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, we shouldn’t get into a discussion about the grammatics of those things, but it seems to me that the statement is, “ ‘The Government has made a deliberate choice to reprioritise low value expenditure to more important policy priorities’; if so, does he consider the provision of transitional housing”—

💬 Hon Member: Places.

—to be low value places.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, he didn’t say “be”. He says “places”.

Oh, OK. You’re very clever—I got that “places” word—but I think we understand the question, so we’ll go ahead. I’m calling the Hon Tama Potaka.

on behalf of the Minister of Housing: As the Minister said yesterday in this fine House, this Government, in Budget 2024, are about tough decisions. This Kāwanatanga will make deliberate choices to fund high-priority Kāwanatanga commitments. Transitional housing is one way which a warm, dry home is provided to people—Kiwis—in urgent housing need and will remain an option accordingly.

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: Was Bill English’s review into Kāinga Ora paid for out of funding allocated to the provision of transitional housing?

On behalf of the Minister of Housing, the review of Kāinga Ora was funded by a forecast underspend of transitional housing for the current financial year, and there is no impact by this decision to transfer an underspend of transitional housing on transitional housing numbers.

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: Can he confirm that it costs between $6,000 and $8,000 for a transitional housing place for three months?

On behalf of the Minister of Housing, it’s a little bit fuzzy math, and I’ll accept a written question on that matter.

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why was he willing to sacrifice up to 83 transitional housing places to pay for Bill English’s review, when that funding could have come from any other allocation?

We’re not going to get into the mathematics of transitioning places, but what we can say is that there was an underspend on transitional housing over the last year—unlike the serious overspend that the previous Government has made, leaving 3,000-plus kids in emergency housing and 25,000 households on the social housing register.

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: Was Bill English, at any point, considered for the role of chair of Kāinga Ora?

On behalf of the Minister of Housing, I am unaware of that matter.

Question No. 8—Regional Development

8. to the Associate Minister for Regional Development: What update can he provide from his recent trip to the South Island?

I did get stuck in the Clinton pub on Friday night—those electric cars that you have issued us are problematic in rural areas. But last week, I travelled across Canterbury, Otago, and Southland to see regional development and investment in action. Regional New Zealand is the backbone of our country, and through initiatives such as the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) and the climate resilience fund, we can see tangible benefits coming to fruition. I was hosted by Environment Canterbury and I visited Kānoa-funded climate and flood resilient sites. Flooding is the most common natural hazard in New Zealand. Events like the Auckland floods, Cyclone Gabrielle, and the Canterbury floods just show how extensive this damage can be. Government investments in stopbanks, such as Taradale stopbank in Napier, can avoid devastating damage to our local communities. Research shows that for every $1 invested in flood protection, it is estimated between $5 and $8 in direct losses is avoided. This is why core investment in resilient infrastructure such as flood protection projects are so important.

💬 Jamie Arbuckle: How has regional investment supported local manufacturing and engineering?

💬 Hon MARK PATTERSON: More good news: since 2018, through previous funds, such as the Provincial Growth Fund, central government has invested $174 million in 177 Otago-based projects, including $24 million into manufacturing and engineering sectors. Many of these had allowed businesses to purchase essential engineering equipment and facility improvements to boost capacity and productivity. One such investment is in the beating heart of South Dunedin, which is the Hillside railway workshops, which will open again very shortly. This project has received $20 million from the PGF and will provide heavy manufacturing and service capacity for KiwiRail. Re-establishing this mechanical hub and heavy-engineering facility will build greater national resilience and allow KiwiRail to service its trains and assemble wagons.

💬 SPEAKER: Could I just say, some of the answers from the Minister are almost as long as the trip—just try and get it a little tighter.

💬 Jamie Arbuckle: How has regional investment supported local innovation?

💬 Hon MARK PATTERSON: Innovation is a critical lever in developing our regions and identifying opportunities for economic growth. Supporting local innovators will continue to open opportunities for our regions and for our local communities to develop. I had the honour of opening the Inventor’s Lab in Dunedin, which is part of the Petridish innovation hub. Inventor’s Lab allows entrepreneurs and businesses to take an idea for a product, create a prototype, and test and trial the product for the future-stage commercialisation. We have supported a number of Dunedin projects, including the Centre of Digital Excellence, which is closely aligned to the Inventor’s Hub, enabling the gaming industry to grow to its aspirations of $1 billion. Mr Speaker, you will be delighted to hear that Abiotic Factor has risen to fifth place on the global gaming platform Steam over the weekend. So this is all out of Dunedin, all enabled by the PGF, and we look forward to similar innovations coming to fruition.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I’m not sure about “delighted”, but I am interested in seeing it in the slideshow—it would be quite long. The Rt Hon Winston Peters.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister explain who was responsible for the revival of the Hillside workshops in Dunedin, as opposed to who took credit for it?

💬 SPEAKER: Just before the Minister answers, I do recall a situation yesterday where the member asking the question—it took a point of order to make it clear that actions by previous Ministers couldn’t necessarily be brought up in a question to a Minister. That was contested by the Opposition; I agreed it could. So here is an example of exactly how that particular part of the Standing Orders can work, and something new for the member to take on to his vast extent of knowledge. The Hon Mark Patterson.

💬 Hon MARK PATTERSON: Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. I understand the genesis for the investment in the Hillside workshops was the Provincial Growth Fund, which was a key policy that the New Zealand First Party took into the 2017 election.

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: Supplementary question.

💬 SPEAKER: The Hon—

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Megan Woods.

💬 SPEAKER: —Megan Woods—sorry.

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Did the Minister report back to his ministerial colleagues, following his intrepid southern journeys, that New Zealand exists beyond the Cook Strait, given so many of their recent decisions?

💬 Hon MARK PATTERSON: Well, I think, from my extensive answers, you can hear that the Government is focused very much, and certainly Kānoa and the regional development agency, on a number of projects in the South Island.

Question No. 9—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

9. to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What steps has the Government taken to encourage greater competition through the introduction of the Customer and Product Data Bill?

I thank the member for the question. In short, the introduction of this bill allows for controlled and secure access to data, creating a pathway for greater competition in the banking and electricity sectors. This bill lays the foundation for open banking and open electricity which will make it easier for innovative start-ups to compete with established companies. Choice and competition are good things as they ultimately lead to lower prices.

💬 Cameron Brewer: What are some examples of how this bill will benefit New Zealanders?

💬 Hon ANDREW BAYLY: There are many innovative products that are available overseas which cannot operate in New Zealand without consumer data rights. A recent report highlighted that there are as many as 300 companies waiting to do business in New Zealand. One specific example I know of: Australian customers of major banks can get a new home mortgage online within 10 minutes; meanwhile, Kiwi customers of the same banks still have to go through that lengthy manual process to get a loan.

💬 Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Given that the Minister’s Contracts of Insurance Bill picked up a Labour member’s bill and that this consumer data rights bill picked up Arena Williams’ member’s bill, are there any other Labour members’ bills the Minister is intending to pick up?

💬 Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I think it’s a far cry to say that this bill picks up Arena Williams’ bill. I do acknowledge that this bill had its genesis under the previous Parliament, but I’ve got to say that the industry were just at pains to say to me, “Why the hell did it take so long to get this bill in the House?” They’re so happy that this coalition Government has done it within six months, and they couldn’t believe the previous Government.

💬 Cameron Brewer: How does the Minister intend to make sure the transfer of data is safe and secure?

💬 Hon ANDREW BAYLY: It’s natural for people to be concerned about their personal data and how it’s shared, but Kiwis should be and can be assured that allowing access to your data is voluntary, and those using your data must be accredited. Any data can only be shared with the permission of the consumer, and failure to comply with these security measures will be subject to heavy penalties.

💬 Cameron Brewer: What sectors will the Minister be introducing the framework to?

💬 Hon ANDREW BAYLY: The bill will first apply to the banking sector, followed by the electricity sector. These are two areas right now where New Zealanders are hurting with high costs. In time, we will look to apply the bill to the telecommunications sector. New Zealand is lagging behind the rest of the world. There are significant opportunities for encouraging competition which will ultimately benefit all New Zealanders by lowering cost and creating more choice.

Question No. 10—Disability Issues

10. to the Minister for Disability Issues: Why have disability support funding criteria changed recently to now exclude the use of funding during school hours, and does she accept that many disabled people and children rely on flexible funding to be able to access critical support?

Multiple Government agencies have responsibilities for funding disability support, including the Ministry of Disabled People - Whaikaha, and the Ministry of Education through its learning supports. The recent changes to the purchasing guidelines reflected the Ministry of Disabled People’s view that the Ministry of Education is responsible for funding support during school hours. I sympathise with all children and families who may have different support due to the changes and I acknowledge that this may have caused distress. The independent review of disability support funding will be looking into how the whole-of-Government supports work together so that disabled people get the essential support they need.

💬 Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What does she say to the mum whose 11-year-old daughter diagnosed with autism and ADHD and chronic health challenges, who relies on a special one-to-one gymnastic therapy class to help improve her muscle tone and regulate her anxiety levels, will no longer be able to access support because of this new change?

💬 Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, I sympathise with the impact that any changes may have had. The primary question was about the use of funding during school hours, and our Government recognises the importance of school attendance, so much so that we have set a target to ensure children are attending school—this is all children, and an expectation that all children get the education they deserve.

💬 Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What does she say to the mum whose 12-year-old son attends Mockingbird, that helps autistic children cope with school and is offered only during school hours, who says—and I quote—“The only thing helping my child hold on is knowing he has Friday at Mockingbird where he can relax and be himself, and now this is being taken away from him.”?

💬 Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, I understand how challenging it is for parents. Having navigated the system as a parent of a child who needed additional support at school, I understand how challenging it is. But our Government is committed to ensuring that children are at school during school hours and that education provides a support and assistance while children are at school. It is unfortunate that important services like this are operating during school hours when we actually want children to be in school and get the support for their education at school.

💬 Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Is the Minister committed to continuing the transformation of the disability support sector in line with the Enabling Good Lives (EGL) approach, and, if so, how are these changes consistent with EGL principles?

💬 Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, one of the principles in Enabling Good Lives is the concept of mainstream first. And to directly quote: “Disabled people are supported to access mainstream services before specialist disability services.” A review of the disability support services is under way, clearly because there were challenges in the ministry being able to live within its financial means. Additional support has been provided up to 30 June this year. Our commitment is to ensure that Disability Support Services is not a substitution for other Government services and that we are able to consistently and deliberately deliver the essential services that disabled people need.

💬 Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Has the Minister sought confirmation from the education Minister that her Government will fund schools to cover the cost of these programmes now that they can no longer be claimed through disability support funding, and, if not, why not?

💬 Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, there are different Government agencies that deliver services for disabled people. For disabled school children, the expectation is that they are at school. I’ve visited a number of schools who go so far above and beyond to ensure that the disabled children in their schools get the support they need. That’s exactly what we are committed to. I accept fully that it is incredibly challenging for some families.

💬 Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Is the Minister aware of a report by The Education Hub released recently that said there are a growing number of neurodivergent children at schools but that inadequate resourcing, lack of knowledge, and training about how best to support neurodivergent children is taking a substantial toll, and, if so, how can she then justify cutting what little support these children currently have to be able to cope with school?

💬 Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, I know it is incredibly challenging, and this growth in neurodiverse students in our schools is creating some challenges. If the member has specific questions that relate to education, I’d invite her to put those to the Minister of Education. My responsibility, and what the review will look at, is how to ensure that the Disability Support Services is sustainable; that it delivers for disabled children, people, their families, and their carers; but that it is not substituting funding that is available in other Government agencies that are providing disability support.

Question No. 11—Local Government

11. to the Minister of Local Government: What is his response to the Waitangi Tribunal’s finding regarding his bill to reinstate binding polls on Māori wards that “the Crown has breached the Treaty principle of partnership by prioritising coalition agreement commitments and completely failing to consult with its Treaty partner or any other stakeholders”?

The Government’s objective is to give communities the final decision about whether their district or region will have Māori wards rather than councillors. The Waitangi Tribunal report will be available for the select committee to consider alongside the bill. We look forward to viewing the select committee’s recommendations. This Government is restoring local democracy.

💬 Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What is his response to the more than 50 mayors and regional council chairpersons who have criticised this legislation, stating that it is an overreach on local decision-making, a distraction from the real issues councils are facing, and undermines the important contributions that Māori are making?

💬 Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I say to those mayors who wrote to this Government that they should focus on those core issues, and I also say to them: why should they be afraid of what the public have to say about Māori wards? What is wrong with local democracy? Ultimately, they come into my office and they write letters to me and say, “We believe in localism.” Well, the ultimate localism is giving local people the right to have their say through the ballot box.

💬 Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: If this is really about restoring democracy and allowing voters to decide the make-up of their local councils, why are you only going after Māori wards but not rural wards?

💬 Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I make this very clear point: when it comes to the rural wards, which seems to be the only argument that some people have against our policy, the Local Government Commission can take appeals on those wards. And, by the way, the Local Government Commission has the final say on those wards. What we’re saying when it comes to Māori wards is that the last Government took away the ability for any appeal rights, not even to the Local Government Commission, and we are giving the right to local communities to make that decision for their community.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I wonder whether the Minister will explain to the questioner that all sorts of people, including Māori, live in the rural wards, but everybody who’s not a Māori does not live in a Māori ward?

💬 Hon SIMEON BROWN: That is a very clear difference between Māori wards and rural wards—that all voters who reside within that geographical boundary are able to vote for the person or their councillor, whereas Māori wards are basing the decision on ethnicity. It is this Government’s view that those decisions should be made by local communities. And I say to people on the other side of the House: why are you so afraid of the public being able to have their say? It’s called democracy.

Question No. 12—Local Government

12. to the Minister of Local Government: Is he concerned that over 50 of the country’s mayors and regional council chairpeople have signed an open letter opposing mandatory referendums for Māori wards; if so, why is he introducing legislation that directly overrides local government?

No, I am not concerned. The Government is committed to local democracy. We’re not removing the right to establish Māori wards. However, we want each community to decide whether they want one or not. This is a decision for local people in local communities to make their own decisions about local representation, and my message to those mayors is: what’s wrong with some localism—letting local communities make decisions for once? [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Just wait—it will come quiet shortly—OK.

💬 Celia Wade-Brown: Does he consider it reasonable for councils who have already consulted and voted on Māori wards to have mandatory referendums when councils have stated that the costs of these referendums will be worn by ratepayers; if so, how does this reflect the Government’s supposed commitment to responsible spending?

💬 Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, this Government will be ensuring that councils can have those referendums at the same time as the next election for local councils. And so the voters will be able to vote for their mayor and their councillors at the same time as voting for whether or not they want to retain those mayors. And I say once again to members on the other side of the House: what’s wrong with some democracy? Because clearly they don’t believe in that on the other side of the House. [Interruption]

💬 Celia Wade-Brown: How does he respond—

💬 SPEAKER: Just hold up a bit it. OK, now it’s quiet.

💬 Celia Wade-Brown: Thank you. How does he respond to Hastings Mayor Sandra Hazelhurst: “This should not be central government-led. Local councils and communities should be trusted to determine what the best representation for their”—[Interruption] Shall I start again, Mr Speaker?

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, you can start again because questions are heard in silence.

💬 Celia Wade-Brown: How does he respond to Hastings Mayor Sandra Hazlehurst: “This should not be central government-led. Local councils and communities should be trusted to determine what the best representation for their community is.”?

💬 Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I thank the former Her Worship for the patsy question. Ultimately, we trust local communities to make these decisions. We agree local communities, through the ballot box, should be able to make decisions. We are going to entrust local communities to be able to vote on whether or not they should retain—or not—Māori wards in their communities. What’s wrong with some democracy?

💬 Celia Wade-Brown: How many other representation decisions will he require compulsory referendums for—for the number of councillors, for rural wards, for the boundaries, or is it only Māori wards?

💬 Hon SIMEON BROWN: As the member knows, what we’re doing here is we’re requiring those councils which put in place these wards without a referendum to have a referendum. Following that, if a council wishes to put in place a Māori ward, petitioners can petition for a referendum. But, ultimately, councils, when they’re setting up other wards—their checks and balances are in place with the Local Government Commission having those checks and balances. And I would encourage local councils, if there are issues that they also wish to put to referendum, put them to referendum.

💬 Celia Wade-Brown: Is he aware that the advice he received on this bill from the Department of Internal Affairs stated that the polls proved to be an almost insurmountable barrier to establishing Māori wards, and, if so, is this a deliberate tactic to reduce Māori representation in local government?

💬 Hon SIMEON BROWN: Ultimately this is about local democracy, local communities making a decision on whether or not to have a ward based upon ethnicity. That is a major constitutional change for a council and, ultimately, on this side of the House, we’re of the view that communities should make those significant decisions rather than the council. And what’s wrong with a little bit of democracy? Those councils should be right behind this, actually supporting their communities being able to have their say.

💬 Celia Wade-Brown: Does he believe that consulting with affected parties is crucial when developing legislation and, if so, why was this not done with local government representatives as indicated in the regulatory impact statement?

💬 Hon SIMEON BROWN: There was a thing on 14 October called an election, and the parties on this side of the House went out and campaigned on this policy, and the public, all 5.5 million New Zealanders—or not all of them could have a vote—but all 5.5 million New Zealanders were able to be part of a national conversation. They’ll all be able to have their say one day. And, ultimately, they decided on 14 October to elect the Government. And what we’re doing is implementing the policy that we were elected to do and then giving local communities the ability to have their say.