Oral Questions to Ministers

Asked by: CARL BATES, Answered by: Hon SIMON WATTS

What is the Government’s approach to New Zealanders who work hard, save, and invest to get ahead?

On this side of the House, we back Kiwis and we back New Zealand. New Zealanders should be encouraged to save, invest, build businesses, and provide for their families. On this side of the House, we do not see hard-working New Zealanders as a convenient source of more revenue to fund more spending. Our approach is to reward aspiration, investment, and hard work, not punish it with more taxes.

Health

Question No. 6

Asked by: Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL, Answered by: Hon SIMEON BROWN

to the Minister of Health: Is it correct that Health New Zealand’s latest Budget material recently released showed a significant structural funding gap for the 2026-27 year and that it could not cover the costs of its existing activity?

As the Hon Casey Costello said on my behalf in the House, the Government has agreed to increase Health New Zealand’s projected deficit for 2026-27 to $475 million, as set out in media reports and Health New Zealand’s publicly available statement of performance expectations. That is a deliberate decision to deliver more healthcare for New Zealanders. I reject the premise of the second part of the member’s question that Health New Zealand cannot cover the costs of its existing activities; that is not how Government accounting works. The agreed deficit is precisely what allows Health New Zealand to keep delivering those activities and more. It is also important to note that in 2022-23, Health New Zealand overspent its budget by more than $1 billion and, by the member’s own reasoning, precisely the same question could be asked of her.

💬 Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did he claim “record investment in health” in May this year, when only two months earlier he’d been advised that even with that funding, the health system couldn’t cover the cost of its existing services?

I would encourage the member to read page 11 of the statement of performance expectations, which states, “As such Health NZ will be considering a longer path to break-even that is more sustainable and ensures we can continue to deliver more services to New Zealanders without placing unnecessary pressure on the organisation.”

💬 Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: What steps did the Government take to increase pre-committed health funding when advised of that structural deficit in March?

💬 Hon Shane Jones: More than you did!

We went through a process to ensure that Health New Zealand could continue to deliver more services. As stated in the Statement of Performance Expectations, they will be having a “longer path to break-even that is more sustainable and ensures we can continue to deliver more services [for] New Zealanders”.

💬 Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: What other proof of health system underfunding would he expect, other than a Treasury note that references a structural funding gap eight times?

If the member wants to—as I said in my answer to the primary question—pose that same logic on herself, when in 2022/23—

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: No, you’re the Minister!

—Health New Zealand over spent its Budget by more than $1 billion and ran a large deficit that was to ensure that services could be delivered. We’re continuing to ensure we deliver more services for New Zealanders.

💬 Dr Vanessa Weenink: Can the Minister confirm that an extra $475 million in health spending is arithmetically an increase, rather than decrease?

That is correct: a $475 million deficit means Health New Zealand will be allowed to spend $475 million more to allow more money to be spent on health. It is a deliberate decision to deliver more care for New Zealanders.

💬 Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did he choose to allow Health New Zealand to remain in deficit longer, and services at continued risk of cuts, rather than funding the health system more?

Firstly, I would encourage the member to read the statement of performance expectations, which says, “As such Health NZ will be considering a longer path to break-even that is more sustainable and ensures we can continue to deliver more services to New Zealanders without placing unnecessary pressure on the organisation.” This is on top of the additional funding. The Government is continuing to put record funding into healthcare, and most importantly, we are seeing year-on-year improvement against our health targets, which are making progress after years of decline.

Prime Minister

Question No. 7

Asked by: RAWIRI WAITITI, Answered by: Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON

to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

[Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?]

Yes, and particularly our position of no new taxes.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Does he agree with the Māori Language Commissioner that his Governments policies have put te reo Māori at risk?

No, not at all. I think we are very proud to be celebrating te Wiki o Te Reo Māori for 50 years, it’s been really important, and we’ve put a huge investment into it.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: How can he deny that his Government has put te reo Māori at risk when they have cut $30 million from te reo Māori teacher training; removed Māori words from children’s books; replaced Māori Government department names with English ones; directed the Public Service to stop communicating in te reo Māori; removed bilingual road signs; and wasted millions of dollars to make English an official language of this country, when English was under absolutely no threat?

Because we’ve actually invested more than $100 million for Māori education. We’ve put $14 million in to support 51,000 teachers, we’ve put $10 million into a virtual learning network connecting students to Māori-medium science, technology, engineering, and mathematics teaching, we’ve put $48 million into Māori broadcasting, we’ve put $49 million into Te Matatini, and $10 million into Te Māori Tū to showcase Māori culture to the world.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Why has this Government decided to erase or weaken Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations across 19 pieces of legislation under urgency during te Wiki o Te Reo Māori, and does he accept that he is undermining Māori rights while the country is celebrating Māori culture?

No, not at all. Actually, we’ve had all sorts of generic Treaty clauses; from “honour” to “have regard to”, to “give effect to”, to “take into account”—all we’re doing is making sure we don’t have open-ended clauses that could create uncertainty and legal risk. Most importantly, we’re making sure that everyone’s clear about their obligations, because we’re getting maximum clarity and consistency.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the single biggest area of new expenditure in the arts and culture space has been the extra resources put into Te Matatini because of the great support there is for Māori performing arts?

Yes, and I want to commend this Minister and also Minister Tama Potaka for advocating very strongly for it in the Budget.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Does the Prime Minister agree with the esteemed leaders Māui Pōmare, Sir Apirana Ngata, Te Rangi Hīroa, and Timi Kara that the Treaty has three articles, not fabrications and contrivances of the 1980s otherwise dressed up as principles, and that this Treaty between two peoples ultimately brought us together: one people, one country—he iwi tahi tātou?

I also believe very strongly that the best way to meet our obligations under the Treaty is to focus on delivering better outcomes for Māori, and that’s what this Government has been doing.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the bills referred to in terms of regularising references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are actually rationing something that had become akin to cultural spaghetti spread throughout our legislation?

Well, the point that I’ve been making is that we’ve had a complete variation of actual Treaty clauses. It’s important that they are consistent and they give maximum clarity so that everyone understands their obligations.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Does he agree that the three references to Te Tiriti o Waitangi bills that his Government intends to pass will result in less accountability to Te Tiriti, and the only way to stop them is to vote this Government out?

No. I think, actually, that when you look at the results that we’ve had, we’re improving regular attendance for Māori students from 51.3 percent to 54.6 percent; when you think about the lower level of Māori youth offending, down 28 percent; there are 4,000 fewer Māori victims of violent crime; when you think about the amount of work that we’ve done around housing—and what about the Ngāi Tahu aquaculture projects, which are going to create lots of jobs for young Māori? So in this House, we actually get on and we deliver for Māori. We don’t just come here and do performative stuff.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Does he accept that the ultimate accountability to te iwi Māori is via the voting system, and some Māoris in this House are looking healthier than others?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, that’s a point, not a question. Question No. 8—

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Says a list MP.

💬 SPEAKER: —Laura McClure, and no one else, Mr Waititi.

Regulation

Question No. 8

💬 LAURA McCLURE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the Minister for Regulation, what recent announcements has he made about—

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Put your name on the ballot.

💬 SPEAKER: Hey, hey, listen—sorry. No one speaks when a question is being asked. One member has left the House today for breaching that after two warnings, and there will be others to go if we continue.

Asked by: LAURA McCLURE, Answered by: Hon DAVID SEYMOUR

to the Minister for Regulation: What recent announcements has he made about regulatory relief for the hospitality sector?

Last week, alongside our Minister for Tourism and Hospitality, the Hon Louise Upston, I released the latest sector review from the Ministry for Regulation. It shows the usefulness of the ministry because it was able to listen to 13 different sector groups, 27 district licensing committees, 12 territorial authorities, and a further 21 hospitality businesses, alongside receiving 247 written submissions. These people have told the ministry that they have been bedevilled by excessive regulation, often having to provide the same information multiple times even to the same regulator; decisions take too long and they have little certainty; alcohol licensing and renewal processes are inefficient and disproportionate to risk and are ineffective; fees for licensing and registration are too high and not always transparent; food safety requirements are not always effective, efficient, or proportionate to risk; and the building consent and planning requirements create unnecessary costs and delays specific to the hospitality industry. We know this, and we now have 24 recommendations that the Government has already accepted and will implement in the next year—

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: It’s a very long answer.

—because the ministry was able to get this information from the sector.

💬 SPEAKER: It was indeed a long answer, and so concise answers should—

💬 Laura McClure: What are the review’s recommendations?

💬 SPEAKER: Hang on. Answers should—

Mr Speaker—

💬 SPEAKER: No, hang on, we haven’t had the question yet. However, if we could short-cut it without the question and just go straight to the answers, that might be—

💬 Laura McClure: Oh look, I took your advice well on board. What are the review’s recommendations?

Mr Speaker, I’m sure the tape will show that she had asked that question, and I would respectfully submit that I am—

💬 SPEAKER: Well, just a minute.

—being concise: we’ve just done a lot of good.

💬 SPEAKER: Sorry, sit down. I hadn’t heard it and so we’ll just call the question to an end, and, in that case, we’ll go to question No. 9, the Hon Willow-Jean Prime.

Mr Speaker, point of order. There is a right of a member to ask a question, and she does not deserve to lose that right because you don’t believe that I’m answering it correctly.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, you need to read your Standing Orders, because all supplementaries are at the discretion of the Speaker. And you argued with me, which wasn’t the smart thing to do. It’s not progressing.

The question is: are you using that discretion responsibly for the House?