Oral Questions

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

Yes, and especially our actions to rebuild the economy, given the economic mismanagement of the previous Government. This is a Government that is on the side of working New Zealanders. And the progress that we are making by offering tax relief for the first time in 14 years, having inflation at 2.2 percent to have wages growing faster than inflation for the first four quarters of this Government versus 13 under the last one where it went backwards, having the official cash rate and interest rates down, having actually business sentiment and confidence up and consumer confidence up—we’re making good progress. A long way to go, but we’re on the right track.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his claim, “We haven’t had a single rent increase; it’s been stable rents over the last 12 months.”; if so, how does he reconcile that with Statistics New Zealand’s annual rent inflation figure of 4.5 percent over that time, over twice the rate of headline inflation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because that is the case. We have actually had stable rents under this Government versus $180 per week under Labour. Our source of data, from memory, is the tenancy bond data.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So is he saying that Statistics New Zealand is just wrong?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m saying that we’ve had stable rents based off the data that we’ve been using, compared to the $180 per week increase under his Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Given he promised New Zealanders rents would decrease as a result of reintroducing interest deductibility for landlords, how is rents going up 4.5 percent during his tenure as Prime Minister something for New Zealanders to celebrate?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I find it ironic, from that member, getting lectured about rent increases, don’t you think? It’s $180 per week that it went up under his Government. We have stable rents under this Government. Why is that? Because we’ve taken the costs off landlords, we’ve actually got the balance right between tenants and landlords, and we’ve pulled the brightline test back to two years. I’ll just say to that member: rents are stable. They went up $180 under his Government. We’re doing the opposite.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister please define what he means by “stable rents”, and if that includes increasing rents at double the rate of Consumer Price Index inflation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m not sure where you’re getting your data from as the member. I’ll just say to you, I’m getting my data from the tenancy bond data—

SPEAKER: We just should, right at the beginning of today’s question time, establish that we’re going to be a little bit more cautious about the barracking and interjection. Interjection: rare and reasonable; outright barracking: not acceptable. The Rt Hon Winston—the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Crikey! Will he guarantee that the new inter-island ferries Cabinet has agreed to fund will cost less than the $551 million contract with Hyundai that his Government cancelled; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I can guarantee that member they will cost less than the $3.2 billion he let that project grow out to. It’ll be less than that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Prime Minister tell us whether there’s any connection between the fall of the 50-year dynasty in Syria and so many Opposition members having a Damascus experience from their own parties’ war on this country?

SPEAKER: As much as that might be a fascinating answer, we’re not going to hear it. When the House is ready.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Yeah, just when the House settles itself.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he assure the New Zealand public that his Government will not liberalise the sale and supply of military-style semi-automatic weapons; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We haven’t had that conversation in Government, but I can assure you we are focused on improving public safety.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with his Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, that he is struggling in the job of Prime Minister, and, if he doesn’t, why should New Zealanders respect his leadership when his own deputy clearly doesn’t?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I don’t agree with that, but I’ll just say to you members: the New Zealand public can see that this is a Government that’s getting the work done. They can see that inflation’s down, they can see that interest rates are down, they can see that crime is down, and—compared to the ungodly mess that that Government left us—they can see we’re making progress. That’s why they think the country is heading in the right direction, not the wrong direction as it was under your Government.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has she made on banking?

Yesterday, the Government announced it is proceeding with plans to provide Kiwibank with access to more capital. The Treasury and Kiwibank’s parent company, Kiwi Group Capital, will talk to New Zealand KiwiSaver funds, New Zealand investment institutions, and New Zealand professional investor groups about a potential investment of up to $500 million in the bank. Additional capital would enable Kiwibank to compete more vigorously against the “big four” Australian-owned banks. As the Commerce Commission reported earlier this year, the banking sector is a “highly profitable, two-tier oligopoly”, and New Zealanders are not well served by what could be characterised as a cosy pillow fight between the “big four” banks.

Sam Uffindell: What benefit would there be in providing Kiwibank with access to more capital?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Kiwibank has been growing faster than the market average for six years, but it is still a relatively small player. To keep growing, it needs more capital. I’ve been advised that an additional $500 million of capital could support up to $4 billion of business lending or $10 billion of home lending. That is sufficient to add competitive pressure to the market. Treasury calculates that even a 0.25 percent drop in personal and business lending rates across all banks would save customers $1.5 billion to $2 billion a year.

Sam Uffindell: When will the Government make a decision on access to additional capital?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Around the middle of next year, Kiwi Group Capital and the Treasury will report to me on options. Cabinet will then make a final decision on whether to proceed with a capital raising. If a decision to proceed is taken, it is expected that Kiwi Group Capital will launch a formal offer to raise new capital from suitable New Zealand investors between October next year and June 2026.

Sam Uffindell: Will Kiwibank be floated on the open market?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: A future Government may consider the possibility of a public share offering at some point, but, at this stage, the potential offering would be limited to KiwiSaver funds, New Zealand investment institutions, and New Zealand professional investor groups. I’m advised that Kiwibank would not be in a position to conduct a public offering until it has completed upgrading its systems and technology. That is not scheduled to happen until 2028. Therefore, the Government is not considering a market float during this term of Government.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: Fa‘afetai tele lava, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by her statement that “We have a responsibility to ensure the public gets value for its money”; if so, is she confident that the Government’s alternative ferries will be less than the $551 million contract with Hyundai that was cancelled?

Yes. I stand by the statement which was referring to the Government’s decision to decline a request from KiwiRail to contribute additional funding to the iReX project. And, yes, I’m confident that the Government’s alternative ferry solution for the Cook Strait will cost less than the iReX project that was started under the previous Government and which blew out to a cost of at least $3 billion.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a question on notice. It was not a question about the whole of the iReX project; it was a question specifically about the cost of the ferries. It wasn’t a question about the whole project and it’s a primary question on notice.

SPEAKER: The Minister might like to respond to that.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the member may like to pretend you can have ships without berths and you don’t need to consider the cost of port-side infrastructure, but we here in the real world understand that the two must come together. So we have considered project costs in their totality. I can also say that the likely cost of ferries and other infrastructure needed to support them cannot be disclosed due to commercial sensitivity.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Has she set aside a tag contingency of $900 million for the procurement of two smaller, non - rail-enabled ferries?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I do not believe it is in the public interest to answer that today. The member will just have to wait until an announcement is made later this week.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Has she undertaken a cost-benefit analysis to understand the increase in cost to users, freight operators, port operators, and the wider transport system as a result of her decision to not support rail-enabled ferries?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That question contains speculation which I think I do not have a need to respond to. What I can say is that Cabinet, in considering a ferry replacement option, has had in mind safety, reliability, resilience, compatibility with rail, and value for money, not just for freight users and passengers but for New Zealand taxpayers as well.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister explain how it was that a commission of $400 million to buy two ferries ended up at $3.2 billion, and 80 percent of that money was not to do with the ferries but with infrastructure that was not required in the first tender that was put out in 2020, when somebody who knew what he was doing was running the outfit?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the member makes a very good point. It should be remembered that by the time we came into Government, the cost of the ferries—the ships themselves—was just 21 percent of the total cost of iReX. That is to say, four in every five dollars was going towards costs that weren’t even ships, with the blowout having been overseen by members who were in that Cabinet and sat by while New Zealanders’ money was recklessly put at risk.

SPEAKER: Can I just make the point that current Ministers are not responsible for what happened or how it came about; they’re responsible for the portfolio in its entirety over a duration.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. With respect, sir, coming to that conclusion, why did you not stop the Minister from answering? Surely you didn’t wait till the end to make your mind up on that matter.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order. Your ruling is correct, with one exception: if the Minister’s trying to wrestle to explain how the costs got out of hand, and that deals with a previous Minister, then this is the entitlement of the House to hear the facts; not just one side of the story but the full story. This started off at $400 million for two ferries—

SPEAKER: Yeah, look, that’ll do. Because that’s the point that—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, no, and it goes to $3.2 billion and it won’t do because we can’t afford that sort of rubbish.

SPEAKER: That’s the point I was about to make to the Hon Kieran McAnulty: that the question started by asking for confirmation of a figure. The question, then—I must confess—did slide into an area that it perhaps shouldn’t have. I think that was an oversight on my part, but I don’t think it rules out, entirely, the question that was asked, which was, “What was the start price?”

Hon David Seymour: Is it the Minister’s understanding that the whole point of ferries is to transport people and goods between points on the land, and therefore focusing on the price of the ferries without thinking about where they would dock is not only totally impractical but grossly fiscally irresponsible?

SPEAKER: Well, insomuch as the answer will relate to the primary question, the Minister may make a comment.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. It may be the case that some members might like to pretend that you can buy ships without caring about supporting infrastructure, but I would say that is as fantastical as promising 100,000 KiwiBuild houses—

SPEAKER: That’s enough—that’s enough. Look, sorry. If that happens again, the question time will be terminated for members who speak that way.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Has she set aside $300 million to cover the cancellation cost with Hyundai?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The negotiations with Hyundai are yet to conclude. The details of those negotiations are highly commercially sensitive. It is my responsibility to protect the taxpayer and so I won’t be disclosing details about that.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she regret making the political point by refusing additional funding for KiwiRail now that her alternative deal for the new, smaller ferries could cost $900 million, the sunk costs on winding up the project are around half a billion, and the break fee could be upwards of $300 million?

SPEAKER: Can I just make the point that if the Minister were to answer that question, the Minister would be free to range very, very broadly across anything relating to this at all, given the speculative nature of the question. If you read the Standing Orders, that’s how it works. If you’re going to ask for a strict interpretation of the Standing Orders in one breath, then you’ve got to expect that the response might be similar in a further consideration.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I regret and will always remember an incoming Government being faced with a situation where they were set a deadline of a matter of weeks to determine whether we would shovel more cash into a failing project that had had multiple cost blowouts, that had gone completely off the rails, and that the last Government had not acted on. For an incoming Government—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: That’s enough. Thank you.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —to be faced with such a situation is regrettable, and I do hope that Ministers—

SPEAKER: No, sorry—hang on. I’m not—just, you can finish your answer, but we’re not putting up with that constant barrage from this side of the House and some sort of endorsement coming from the back of the House. It’s unnecessary. Please finish.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: And I would hope that members opposite would reflect on the mess they left behind them and the extraordinary efforts our Government has had to go to to clean it up.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it a good deal for Kiwis that around half a billion dollars has been written off the Government’s financial statements and potentially a $300 million cancellation cost as a result of her Government’s decision to cease the iReX project?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I have said, it would not have been a good deal for New Zealanders to have shovelled more cash at a failing project which had blown out to more than $3 billion in cost, and I would say was destined to blow out even further; where there were still questions about whether the ships could pass through the Tory Channel; where there were still questions about whether berths would be delivered on time. It was a failed project, and the member’s defence of it tells me that she does not take value for taxpayers’ money seriously.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is his message to the one in eight tamariki who will not be having a merry Christmas this year as their whānau can barely afford kai, let alone Christmas presents?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I acknowledge that’s an incredibly tough situation. There are many New Zealanders that have had a very difficult year and continue to do so, and that is directly a function of economic mismanagement over the previous six years. When Government spending goes up 84 percent, when inflation goes up to 7.3 percent, and when interest rates go up 12 or 13 times and you end up putting an economy into recession, people start losing their jobs—it’s tough.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is his message to the hundreds of tamariki who, according to Variety’s Kiwi Kids Sponsorship, have asked for kai instead of presents in their Christmas wish-lists this year?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I refer the member to my former answer.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Supplementary.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order.

SPEAKER: We’ll take three, first—oh, point of order, the Hon David Seymour.

Hon David Seymour: Mr Speaker, I’d just seek your guidance. The member has asked a primary about statements and actions of the Prime Minister, and then asked a series of questions about circumstances within New Zealand that may not relate to anything the Prime Minister has done or said, but imputes that those circumstances are somehow his fault. I think that’s out of order and, frankly, unfair.

SPEAKER: Yeah, look, I’d—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: All right.

Chlöe Swarbrick: The Child Poverty Report from the Budget said that this Government was knowingly making decisions to put thousands more kids in poverty.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s the interpretation you’re putting on it. I’m merely saying that we’ve ruled that “Does he stand by all his statements and actions?”—almost everything the Government does can be attributed to something somewhere, good and bad, and, therefore, questions of this nature are not out of order.

Hon David Seymour: Well, speaking to that, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: What is this—sorry?

Hon David Seymour: Is it not then incumbent on the questioner to identify the statement or action?

SPEAKER: Well, certainly, the questions relate to statements that have been made; we’ve just had that pointed out to us. But, look, if the House wants to go down to a very pedantic way of dealing with questions, we’ll do the same with answers, and that won’t suit everybody, either.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How much did the Prime Minister profit from untaxed capital gains this year?

SPEAKER: No, that question is out of order—that question is out of order. The member can try another question, if she wants, but not that one.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is it fair that everyday New Zealanders are paying over 20 percent in tax while the richest 40 percent get away with only paying 10 percent through untaxed capital gains?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What’s not fair is that 23,000 children were put into poverty in the last year under the Labour Government. Thanks to our Budget actions, 17,000 children are being moved out of poverty, and that is because we’re offering tax relief, that’s because we’re getting inflation relief, that’s because we’re getting interest rate relief, and we’re actually building confidence in this economy so that it can grow and keep people in jobs.

Hon David Seymour: Has this Government ever made any statements or will it make any statements to the effect of telling people that their problems are caused by other people’s success and dragging down other people for being successful is somehow the solution to their problems?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: This is a Government that believes we should celebrate people who have been successful and that are working incredibly hard to get ahead. If you care about low and middle income working New Zealanders, you are a fiscal conservative, unlike the last Labour-led Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister concerned about how much Te Pāti Māori were enhanced by the abuse of the charities legislation of this country?

SPEAKER: No, no, that’s not something that the Prime Minister can answer. We’ll move to question—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Oh, a supplementary.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Did the Prime Minister declare any conflicts of interest when he became the Prime Minister of a Government that is actively passing laws to line the pockets of landlords like himself while taking away renters’ rights?

SPEAKER: No, I’m sorry, that question is out of order. The member knows that there is a pecuniary interests document and that all members declare their interests in that.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How many houses could we build over six years with $200 billion, which is the amount of additional revenue we would gain from a capital gains tax?

SPEAKER: Look, I think the point made by the Hon David Seymour earlier is a correct one when you start getting that far away from statements and actions of the Government. There are different ways to ask that question without losing the question. Have another go at it.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: I’ll go on to another one if that’s OK with you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: That depends whether it’s in order or not.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Thank you. What urgent, tangible actions is the Government taking to protect the livelihoods of the 230 workers facing the axe at Kinleith Mill before Christmas and prevent Tokoroa’s economy from spiralling into intergenerational hardship?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, I want to acknowledge how difficult it is for the workers and the families impacted by the closure of the mill. I thank the Minister for Social Development and Employment, who has made sure that the Ministry of Social Development is in there working with that community to look at opportunities for people in employment. But I also want to say that Oji, the company that is behind the mill, is a large multinational corporation with billions of dollars of investment. They have said for some time that the paper mill is unprofitable, and it hasn’t been helped by the Labour-Greens energy policy, which ended up creating high electricity wholesale prices, because the Green Party thought it was a great idea to import Indonesian coal rather than to use domestic gas, and that is a contributing factor to what has happened here. So we are a Government that is focused on rebuilding the economy, and that means actually good financial and fiscal discipline so that we lower inflation, so that we lower interest rates, so that we grow the economy, and so that we get people into high-paying jobs.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware that one of if not the greatest inputs to such a mill is electricity, and does the Government have any policies that will make it easier to build generation capacity, which happened to be opposed by Te Pāti Māori?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I would encourage Te Pāti Māori and the Greens and Labour—if they cared about the environment, if they cared about our energy policy, they would back us in ending the oil and gas ban. They would back the legislation around fast-track legislation that is building 30 percent more renewable electricity into this country. There’s a lot that they should be supporting in this Government, because we are delivering on the economy, making sure that people are doing better, and making sure the environment is going ahead.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. David Seymour has been raising a number of points of order today about questions from the Opposition which he regards as being out of order. That question asked the Prime Minister to speculate on Opposition parties’ support or otherwise for a piece of legislation. The question itself was therefore out of order. All of the Prime Minister’s answer was out of order as well, because he has no responsibility for that. I’m surprised that you ruled neither the answer nor the question out of order.

SPEAKER: Well, the question was not out of order, because I heard that in silence. Therefore, I did hear it. It was not out of order, because it was a follow-on from the matters that were brought up by the primary questioner in an earlier supplementary. I heard very little of the Prime Minister’s response, largely due to the noise in the House. We’ll come now to question No. 5.

Question No. 5—Prime Minister

5. 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.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Government committed to meeting our nationally determined contribution (NDC) to the Paris Agreement to limit global warming below 1.5 degrees?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we’re going to work incredibly hard to deliver on our climate commitments and goals.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is that a yes or a no answer to whether his Government is committed to meeting our nationally determined contribution?

SPEAKER: Well, the member will know that yes or no answers can’t be required. So without losing the supplementary, try again.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister and his Government committed to meeting our nationally determined contribution?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’re going to do everything we can to meet some very ambitious goals.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is that answer to be taken that this Government is not committed to meeting our nationally determined contribution to the Paris Agreement?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What, then, are we to make of answers from the Prime Minister, refusing to give a yes or no answer as to whether we will meet our nationally determined contribution out to 2030?

SPEAKER: Well, the problem is, even asking it that way requires a yes or no answer. That’s not how the place works. So the member could ask that question again without penalty, because it’s Christmas time—end of year, great generosity; all that sort of thing—and try and ask the question in a way that brings it into line.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Ministry for the Environment and Treasury last year forecasted that we could be on the hook for up to $24 billion to pay other countries to reduce their emissions if we refuse to do it here at home under our nationally determined contribution?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our Government’s very committed to delivering on our net carbon 2050 goals and doing everything we can to deliver on NDC 2030.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Prime Minister tell us which party’s Minister on this issue incurred us a potential of $22 billion being owed offshore, and for how long was he here?

SPEAKER: Ah, no—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, come on, we all know the story—

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, look, it’s a great general debate line; it’s brilliant. But it’s not particularly useful for question time and directed at the Prime Minister.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Mr Speaker, that is the fourth question from a Government Minister—the third from the Deputy Prime Minister—that you have ruled to be out of order. Is there going to be any attempt to try and curtail this or is it just going to be allowed to continue all through the remaining two years of this term?

SPEAKER: Well, I don’t know, because I don’t know how many further out-of-order questions there’ll be. But I previously have stated that if it continues, then the question lines will be terminated. So I’m being a bit flexible today to both questions being asked and answered, but that question was out of order and not required to be answered.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Should the New Zealand public be concerned that the Prime Minister of this Government is refusing to commit to meet our nationally determined contribution out to 2030, only promising that he is hopeful that we will do so?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, this Government is committed to net carbon 2050. That’s our commitment. That’s what we’re working towards. Our emissions budget 1 puts us on track to do that. Emissions budget 2 puts us on track to do that, and you’ll hear more about that with the emissions reduction plan announced this week.

Chlöe Swarbrick: The NDCs, Christopher. It’s $24 billion.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just say to that member, if you actually cared about the environment—

SPEAKER: Hang on, hang on, wait. Please, just listen to the answer to the question that you’ve asked. If the question was important, listen to the answer.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just say to that member, I think she and her party should get behind the fast-track legislation. We are looking at a 30 percent increase in renewable electricity generation from those 22 fantastic renewable electricity projects. We want the benefit of renewable electricity sooner rather than later. It’s a good idea. Why don’t you support it?

Question No. 6—Children

6. to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by all her statements and actions in relation to the Military-Style Academy Pilot and young offending; if so, why?

Yes, in the context in which I said and did them; in particular, my statements that Oranga Tamariki does not have the ability to restrict the movement of these young people, or the choices they make once they leave the residence and return to the community, and also my statement that we have already seen success with the military-style academy, including involvement for the participants in jobs, education, and training.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she stand by her statement in relation to the young serious offenders legislation that “Then we can actually have a more intensive programme where it’s not just three months in, nine months out; it’ll be 12 months in, 12 months out with the option of extra time if the young person still needs it.”, and, if so, why?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The new legislation will allow the ability for a judge or a court to decide on the level of intensive response that is needed for a young person based on their needs. It is to be no less than three months, but no more than 12 months. Each young person has their own issues that they are dealing with and may need a different level of intervention.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Will she rule out any involvement of the New Zealand Defence Force or Corrections in any future military-style academy?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I’m not responsible for Corrections or Defence.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It is in relation to the military-style academies; I have asked if she will rule out their involvement in the military-style academy.

SPEAKER: From the point of view of the Minister for Children, I think the Minister could expand on that answer.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: This is a pilot that is ongoing that has worked with Defence and has worked with multiple agencies to make sure that we get the best outcomes for these young people, and those will be future discussions to be had.

SPEAKER: Laura Trask.

Laura McClure: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s Laura McClure now.

SPEAKER: Yes, OK, I got that wrong, sorry.

Laura McClure: No worries. What would the alternative be for these 10 young people if they hadn’t been on the military-style pilot programme?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: These young people were already in a youth justice facility, on a supervision and residence order from a judge. If they were not on the pilot, they would still have been released back into the community at the end of their order. However, they would not have had the extra support the pilot provided, such as intensive case management, a one-on-one intensive mentor, psychologists, social workers, and other service providers that were working with them to help keep them on track.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How many participants, in total, have allegedly reoffended, including offending not involving police, or breached the conditions of their in-community transition plan?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: There’s some questions in there that I may not be able to answer because they may not be to my knowledge, but there have been three young people that have had accusations of reoffending.

Laura McClure: What recent statements has she seen about the military-style academy pilot?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: There’s been many statements that have been put out into the public, and I think there’s one in particular that needs to be clarified. It was suggested that a young person had died in the military-style academy pilot. This is simply untrue. A young person has tragically died in the community whilst in whānau placement. The attempt to use the death of a young person for political gain is absolutely shameful and disgusting, and that statement was actually shared on social media by someone who should have known better, and that was Green MP Tamatha Paul. [Interruption]

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Let’s give the House a few seconds to settle itself down. Now would be good.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: In relation to the previous question I asked, has Oranga Tamariki advised you of any other incidents?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Nothing that was in the public interest currently that I can speak to.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: If she sees any harm being done to children in the military-style academies—in residence or in the community—will she promise to shut them down?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: In all seriousness, I came into this role to make the lives of young people better. Children and young people have been hurt and harmed for over 20 to 30 years. The royal commission report has brought this to our attention. What I can say is I will put all safety mechanisms that I can in place to keep these young people safe, but we cannot continue to do what we were doing, which was absolutely nothing.

Question No. 7—Transport

7. to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made on restoring democratic accountability to transport in Auckland?

On Friday, I announced, alongside Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown, that our Government is restoring democratic accountability to transport decision-making in Auckland, ensuring voters can hold their elected representatives accountable for the city’s transport policies. The changes we’re making will ensure that transport policies have democratic legitimacy and democratic accountability, something that has been sorely lacking in Auckland.

Cameron Brewer: What reforms are the Government making to transport decision-making in Auckland?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, our reforms will return regional transport policy and planning to Auckland Council; establish a new Auckland regional transport committee, which will develop a 30-year integrated transport plan for Auckland, designate Auckland Council as Auckland’s road-controlling authority, and empower Auckland Council to have control over its council-controlled transport organisation.

Cameron Brewer: Why is the Government restoring democratic accountability to transport in Auckland?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Aucklanders have become increasingly frustrated with how transport decisions are being made and how little their views have been taken into account. Even Auckland Transport’s recent annual report highlighted that only 29 percent of Aucklanders felt the organisation listens and responds to their needs. To address these concerns, we’re restoring democratic decision-making for transport in Auckland, and if Aucklanders continue to feel the transport system isn’t working for them, they can hold their local elected representatives to account at the ballot box.

Cameron Brewer: What do these important reforms mean for Aucklanders?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, these reforms will mean there’ll be greater long-term planning between central and local government, with a 30-year integrated transport plan; focus on delivery with a transport council-controlled organisation focused on delivering transport services and infrastructure; and accountability over decisions made in local communities, such as removing car parks, installing speed bumps, putting cycleways in place. Aucklanders will be able to hold their elected members to account at the ballot box.

Question No. 8—Science, Innovation and Technology

8. to the Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology: Is she comfortable with her decision to cut social sciences and humanities research from the Marsden Fund, and, if so, why?

Unsurprisingly, yes, I am. Last week’s changes to the around $78 million Marsden Fund ensure our limited funding is focused on the areas of science research with the greatest potential to grow our economy while enhancing quality of life for New Zealanders. The Marsden Fund will continue to support blue-skies research, but will now focus on those core science areas more likely to lead to scientific breakthroughs.

Scott Willis: Does she stand by her statement that the Marsden Fund should “focus on core scientific research that helps lift our economic growth and contributes to science with a purpose.”, and, if so, is she confident that the science system will still be able to address the most pressing challenges facing Aotearoa today, when it is simply funding a narrow and politically manufactured definition of a science system, based purely on economic gain?

SPEAKER: Now, there’s a whole lot of that question that was out of order, but the substance of it can be answered by the Minister.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I’m very confident that we’ll be going to be doing even better science than what we have been doing. And, certainly, it’s wrong to say that the entire focus will be on economic gain; only 50 percent of the applications, or around that, will need to show that they can actually start to grow the economy and they have potential to do so. There is still blue-skies research, but it will be on science.

Scott Willis: Is she saying that research on housing, homelessness, poverty, poor achievement in schools, racial hatred and terrorism, crime rates, violence, discrimination, the marginalisation of groups in society, social cohesion, mental health, addiction, and poor health outcomes does not “contribute to science with a purpose.”?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I don’t want to pick on any particular area that the member’s raised, but I will say that most of those that he’s named are not science. They are, however, very important, and many of those are already funded through the funding that the universities get—if I think about things like, for instance, the Performance-based Research Fund, the centres of research excellence, and tuition subsidies. In addition to that, many Government departments commission research to support policy objectives, including some of those that the member’s raised, social and cultural outcomes—for example, the Treasury; the Reserve Bank; the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment; the Ministry for Primary Industries; the Ministry for the Environment; the Department of Conservation; and others. In essence, this is targeted funding for science, and it will be staying with science while I’m the Minister.

Scott Willis: Can the Minister explain what she means by “science”?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I think it’s really important to go back—so, I mean, when I was at school, we learnt about maths; so we learnt chemistry, biology, physics. We learnt about science. We also understood that in order to deal with some of the big issues of the world—whether it’s climate change, whether it’s pollution, whether it’s those sorts of issues—we need to go to science. So, you know, when I look at some of the things that I would like to talk to him about, and you mentioned some of the things that I consider science, that have been funded this year through Marsden—“Mapping how viruses get into and travel around B cells and lymph nodes”; that’s science. “Producing next-generation materials that can capture methane”—that’s science. “The molecular mechanisms driving gastric cancer survival rates: understanding the role of nuclear immune systems”—yes, no, no, that’s science. “Unleashing the potential of titanium as a replacement for precious metal catalyst by fixing it to solid supports”—yeah, no, that’s science too. And I’d also say that there’s quite a lot of science that’s currently being funded, but I do not think $360,000 of taxpayer money to look at what are the implications of policing climate justice activism—nah, that’s not science.

Scott Willis: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: We’ll just—just quiet, thank you.

Scott Willis: Does she stand by her statement regarding social sciences and humanities research that “There is actually no payback at all for the New Zealand taxpayer.”, or does she see value for taxpayers in research which helps Aotearoa avoid costly climate change adaptation impacts by combining modelling and science with social research?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I think I made it really clear that social sciences—research into those—there’s already loads of funding for that. It’s in various areas but it’s not going to be coming out of my science budget; I want to make that really clear. These are the things I’ve listed off what I think is science—I do actually accept that they need to be funded. I’m not happy with things like $360,000 going for Big Things, Complex Shadows: Investigating Intersecting Stories Of Place, Identity, And Erasure Through Aotearoa’s Large Roadside Sculptures in Aotearoa. And this is all about, basically, the carrot outside Paeroa. No, I don’t think that’s science, sorry.

Scott Willis: How do these changes to the Marsden Fund align with the Crown’s obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi to actively protect and promote Māori knowledge and development?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Look, what I think is really important to realise is that if there are science applications or science research applications that are relevant with Vision Mātauranga policy, that’s fine, too—they’re still relevant—and I think that’s really important. But I don’t think that Māori or anyone else in New Zealand, apart from a few, might be that excited about the fact that they want to look at the history of big things that were put outside towns in the 1980s. I mean, next thing the member will be suggesting that we fund a study into those great big pou that are around those wonderful roads of national significance, but I actually don’t think that’s science. It might be interesting—ain’t science.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Minister aware that many Māori happen to view science as a method of building knowledge by testing falsifiable hypotheses through empirical observation, and to suggest that we don’t get that and are into superstition or that the Treaty requires us to be into superstition instead of science is, frankly, offensive?

SPEAKER: Well, it’s a great statement but not a question.

Question No. 9—Social Development and Employment

9. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding new work-focused support for people on jobseeker benefits?

I’m pleased to say that we have recently expanded the Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD) phone-based case management service to support 10,000 job seekers. This has increased the total number of people who are being supported by an MSD employment case manager at any time to 70,000. All 70,000 will now be eligible to receive a new, more comprehensive needs assessment of the challenges that might be holding them back from finding work and a personalised job plan to overcome them. These new supports add to the ever growing suite of welfare initiatives that we have introduced in our first year and demonstrate our commitment to delivering better public services and supporting more people to move off welfare and into work.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: How do individual job plans work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Individual job plans will begin with a comprehensive work-readiness needs assessment that will go beyond someone’s work experience, availability, and career aspirations. It will examine any barriers to employment that they may have, such as their reading and writing skills, childcare needs, driver-licensing requirements, and how comfortable they are with digital technology, as well as any physical or mental health issues that they may have. Their case manager will work with them to come up with a personalised plan to address these issues and for a time line to complete them. The job seeker will then be referred to any training programmes or support services as required.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why does the Government consider new work-focused support necessary?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Slowing benefit exit rates in previous years has contributed to a significant increase in the amount of time people on benefits are predicted to spend on welfare. For instance, people under the age of 25 who come on to a main benefit are currently forecast to spend an average of about 20 future years on welfare over their lifetime. This is a 49 percent increase over the figures in 2017. We also know that many people on jobseeker support have complex backgrounds, and not being able to read instructions properly or take the company van out to run errands because they don’t have a driver’s licence is holding them back from finding work. We want MSD assessing the needs of job seekers early so that they can identify issues and get the help they need to overcome them faster.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What is the benefit of having more people in employment case management?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Case managers provide greater opportunities for job seekers, but the most important is the regular one-on-one support that people on benefit get to help them in their job search. Case managers know their communities and how to use local networks to find the work that is available. They help job seekers to upskill and train, to create a CV or cover letter and get connected with any wraparound support that they might need. I’m really pleased that our Government’s focus on delivering better public services has seen MSD’s phone-based case management service rapidly grow from assisting 1,500 people in July to 10,000 today, meaning significantly more people are receiving one-on-one support.

Question No. 10—Police

10. to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by his statement, “Having considered my performance over the last year in Government, I believe that I have delivered on my promise for New Zealanders to see change in my first 12 months as Police Minister”; if so, why?

Yes, I do: victimisations are down, ram raids are down, aggravated robberies are down, serious assaults are down, burglaries are down, crime in the Auckland CBD is down. Foot patrols are up. Police are back on their core role, keeping communities safe. Gang patches are banned. The gangs have found out that they’re not above the law, and police do outstanding work every day reminding them it’s them who control the streets. Earlier this year, TVNZ polled the public and asked if they felt safer; they did it again last night. The good news is more people feel safer. I recognise that there’s still a lot of work to do. We’ve inherited, as an incoming Government, a terrible situation left by the previous Government, and it’s going to take a lot of hard work to get on top of that, and we acknowledge that, but we’re seeing good movement in the right direction. There was one poll that was taken when the previous member was Minister of Police—

SPEAKER: Yeah, hang on—hang on, wait on. I think the question’s been answered.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Was the Deputy Commissioner of Police correct about the delivery of 500 more police at the annual review when he stated, “When that wing graduates on 26 June 2026, we’re projected to have achieved that by that date.”; if not, why not?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, he was correct in stating that the funding by this Government goes through to June 2026. That’s how appropriations work. But he would also agree with me and say that under this coalition Government, an excellent recruitment policy brought by our partners New Zealand First for 500 additional police officers is to be delivered in November of this year, unlike the previous Government, who promised 1,800 and only delivered 1,500.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Was the Commissioner of Police wrong when he told One News that he was confident that 500 more police would be delivered in 2026; if so, why?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Because he knows that there’s going to be a lot more police on the street in 2026. But the reality of it is that the commissioner agrees with the deputy commissioner and agrees with me that our target is to deliver 500 additional police officers in November of this year.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Do you agree with the Commissioner of Police’s statement “if it takes us a little bit of extra time to produce the best men and women of our organisation for the front line, then we’ll take that [time].”; if not, why not?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I think we’ve got an outstanding Commissioner of Police, and we were very, very pleased to make that appointment. I think that he recognises, as do we, that standards are extremely important. That’s why the Police College is now delivering a 20-week course instead of a 16-week course. The commissioner agrees with me that we have our target, an aspirational target, a very good target, delivering 500 additional police officers in November.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Who is correct: Casey Costello, who said, “I think it’s really important to get the context of what the commissioner was saying.”—and it was that he had said there was no deviation from the commitment to achieve November 2025—or the Commissioner of Police, who publicly stated on the national news that Police will have 500 more police in 2026?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, they’re both right. Casey Costello’s absolutely 100 percent correct, as we are committed to delivering 500 police officers in November of this year. The Police Commissioner is also correct in saying there’ll be 500 additional police officers in 2026, because there will be—they would’ve been delivered in November 2025.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Who is correct: the police Minister on 30 January, who said it would take three years to deliver the 500; the police Minister, who said, the next day, after a phone call from Winston Peters, that the 500 would be delivered in two years; or the Commissioner of Police, who said just last week it would take three years?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The problem the member has is she’s got no credibility around her information sources and figures, so that’s a whole lot of rambling mumbo-jumbo. I just want to say that on this side of the House, in this coalition Government, we are deadly serious about public safety and we are focused on making sure that we’re a safer country. We inherited a shambles from the previous Government that wasn’t focused on that. We are laser-focused on it, and we’ll deliver our police officers and we’ll make New Zealand a safer place.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister taking a very cautionary tone because the record is of a former promise to deliver 1,800 but we delivered 2,338, only to see a massive reduction in those numbers under a Labour-alone Government?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes. Well, look, the Deputy Prime Minister makes a very good point, which is that the previous Government promised to deliver 1,800 police officers. They missed their target three times—I think it’s three times—

SPEAKER: We’re not here to discuss the previous Government. It’s the rules of the House. You want to change the rules? Turn up to the Standing Orders Committee and have a shot at it there—not in the House.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he regret not fronting up to scrutiny week and showing some leadership now that he is left with no other option but to gaslight New Zealanders about the broken promise to deliver 500 more police in two years?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Oh no, don’t worry. I front up all right—don’t worry about that. I get around the country and I constantly get asked, “Where’s that Chris Hipkins and Ginny Andersen that walked around with—

SPEAKER: No, that’s enough. Thank you.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that the police are successfully implementing the gang patch ban, and have there been any commentators or other members of this House who’ve had a road to Damascus experience on that one?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Very good question. So after 12 months of hearing from those commentators and others that the police didn’t have the capability and the gangs were too strong, I think the police have answered that one in the last two weeks. They’ve done an outstanding job in policing the new gang legislation, and they’ve let the country know—and the country’s responded to it—that they are controlling the streets, not the gangs.

Question No. 11—Building and Construction

11. to the Minister for Building and Construction: What announcements has he made around reducing the cost of building?

We’ve made many such announcements, but yesterday we announced that we’re proposing sensible changes to the installation standards for energy efficiency that will enable a more flexible approach to be taken to achieve the same standards but in a more nuanced fashion that will have the added benefit of reducing cost.

David MacLeod: Why was change needed?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The context is that since 2019, the cost of construction increased by 40 percent. That was due to many different factors, including additional costs imposed by the rules in the form that they were imposed that came into effect late last year. So our approach was to consider ways that we might be able to achieve the same standards in a more flexible or nuanced way, relying on the calculation and modelling methods as opposed to the more prescriptive schedule method in the building code.

David MacLeod: What changes are being proposed to the installation standards?

Hon CHRIS PENK: I’ve referenced the proposed removal of the schedule method, meaning that in different parts of the country with different climactic conditions, we will allow designers and builders to take account of the requirements in those areas in a way that makes sense for those conditions. We are adjusting the minimum R-values in the installation, for example, in the walls, so that the overall building design can get us to the place that we need to be for the purpose of energy efficiency, respiratory health, energy efficiency and therefore cost, all without increasing the additional cost that had been imposed in the rules in the form that they had been introduced last year.

David MacLeod: What impacts will these changes have on building costs?

Hon CHRIS PENK: We hope and expect that they will reduce the cost considerably in many cases. The figures provided by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment in relation to the first part of the consultation ahead of the public consultation that will now take place indicates that up to $15,000 may be saved in the case of each new build. So we think it’s a very positive result and we’re grateful for the engagement that’s got us to this outcome.

Question No. 12—Energy

12. to the Associate Minister for Energy: What recent announcements has he made regarding fuel security?

Fuel security is at the apex of our concerns in terms of our economy. Sadly, the security was undermined as the closure of the Marsden Point refinery was green lighted by the Labour Government. To reverse that imperilment, what we have done is announce that new rules are about to be put in place to ensure that we have at least 10 days of jet fuel at the country’s busiest airport. Sadly, this was due to be implemented over the last three to five years and has taken the arrival of the matua to address this problem.

Jenny Marcroft: Why is fuel security important?

Hon SHANE JONES: Fuel security is an important part of broader energy security, and no one, sadly, when that unwise decision to cancel the oil and gas industry, ever imagined it would depend on Indonesian coal. We cannot afford to recreate a situation where jet fuel supply was undermined and we had planes diverted, reducing our connectivity with the rest of the world. A 2019 Government inquiry into the fuel supply disruption concluded that regulations and a remedy needed to be found in a rapidly short period of time. Sadly, this lingered. That has undermined perceptions about our resilience. Consequently, we will no longer allow our energy sector, in relation to fuel security, to be imperilled further.

Jenny Marcroft: When will the new rules come into place?

Hon SHANE JONES: The new rules will be in place by November 2026. This is to ensure that no indiscriminate decisions are made which have unintended consequences, as was the case with the Labour Government’s closure of the oil and gas industry in New Zealand. Therefore, we are working with the fuel companies, but they know that there is no time left—no opportunity for wriggle room. They have to respect that if they want their social licence to be esteemed in New Zealand, they have to step up to the plate and not further undermine our fuel security, as, sadly, was the legacy of the Labour Government.

Jenny Marcroft: What other actions is he taking to ensure fuel security?

Hon SHANE JONES: Well, obviously the oil and gas industry is about to be re-established, but I’m confident that the 21-day cover for diesel or for jet fuel as a stockholding rule will boost our resilience. We are also completing an independent study on the options as to how Marsden Point may further play a role in respect of fuel security, and indeed whether there’s a case for a bespoke set of planning regulations to protect the strategic importance of that site, given it was trashed over the last three years.