Oral Questions

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

Two weeks ago, the Reserve Bank made a 50 basis-point reduction in the official cash rate (OCR). The bank has now reduced the OCR in three consecutive meetings by a total of 125 basis points. It’s forecast OCR track indicates another reduction at the next meeting in February and further falls in 2025. Reductions in the OCR, of course, affect mortgage and business lending rates, which have a direct impact on New Zealand families and businesses.

Nancy Lu: How have OCR reductions affected businesses?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Every business is unique, but a good aggregate picture is shown in the monthly ANZ Business Outlook survey. Business confidence is high. Firms’ expectations of their own future activity is high; their experienced activity, compared to a year ago, is negative but steadily improving, suggesting that interest rate reductions are changing actual behaviour, not just expectations. As ANZ itself points out, the economy is clearly still weak, but things are starting to turn.

Nancy Lu: How have OCR reductions affected households?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: OCR reductions will directly impact households through lower mortgage rates. For someone with a $500,000 mortgage, the difference between an 8 percent mortgage and a 7 percent mortgage is around $140 a fortnight, depending on the term. And that comes, of course, on top of tax relief, which took effect on 31 July this year, and the FamilyBoost childcare payments that many households are now receiving. While each family has its own set of circumstances, many will be feeling better off than they were a year ago.

Nancy Lu: How is consumer confidence tracking?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: ANZ - Roy Morgan Consumer Confidence jumped nine points in November, and both the current and future conditions indexes lifted markedly. ANZ’s conclusion is that “Both households and businesses are optimistic that falling inflation and interest rates will deliver better times ahead.” And I’d also add, for the benefit of many of the National Party and other coalition members, that a forecast milk price of $10 a kilo is making rural communities across New Zealand a lot happier about life and about their prospects for next year.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, and especially our action to unleash growth and investment so that we can rebuild the New Zealand economy. Last night, the next stage in the passage of the Fast-track Approvals Bill kicked off—critical legislation designed to unshackle investment in infrastructure, renewable energy, housing, and a raft of industries that are hungry to grow. We are serious about growth and infrastructure on this side of the House, and fast track is a big part of delivering that vision, and it’s good to see that we’re not alone. It was fantastic to see Labour MP Rachel Boyack give an impassioned speech this morning on one of those projects on the fast-track list: the Hope Bypass. As I’ve said many times before: like many of the fellow Labour MPs, if he’s serious about the future, don’t play politics; support fast track.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why, over a year after cancelling, via text message, the $551 million order for two new Interislander ferries, has the Government still not decided what’s going to replace them?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m very proud that today we announced an incredibly fantastic, incredible plan to actually ensure we have a resilient, safe, and reliable crossing on the Cook Strait, at a reasonable cost. I’m very proud of the plan that we’ve got. We’ve got a great plan: two rail-compatible ferries, an opportunity to improve it even further between now and March, and, importantly, the new ferries will be operational, on time, on the 2029. And isn’t it fantastic to have a new Minister for Rail who’s got the expertise—it’s not his first rodeo.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So how—

SPEAKER: Before the Rt Hon Mr Hipkins asks his questions, I just ask those people down in that sort of centre part of the House there who appear to have better answers than the Prime Minister to perhaps put them in writing and table them in the House rather than just trying to shout them out when no one’s listening.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How much will the new Interislander ferries cost, and why wouldn’t Nicola Willis share that with the public, given David Seymour seems happy to announce it via Twitter?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’d say is it’s going to cost a lot less than the $3.2 billion heading to $4 billion. And maybe, for the member’s benefit, we could just take him through a bit of the history, because in November 2018, the cost was originally $775 million; one year later, 19 November, it doubled to $1.4 billion; February 2023, it was up at $2.6 billion; and by the time we got to November last year, it was actually $3 billion; and then, in July last year, they were told it’s actually closing approximately $4 billion. So what I can reassure that member is that you won’t see the Labour playbook that we’ve seen on ferries and Dunedin and Kāinga Ora; we’re actually going to do it a lot cheaper than that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will the Government’s commitment to delivering the new ferries for less than the estimated cost of the iReX project include costs transferred to other parties such as the port companies, ratepayers, and users?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just say to that member: do not worry, we have a fantastic Minister for Rail; he will deliver it on time, in full, under budget.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: In that case, what does it say about his confidence in Nicola Willis that he’s transferred responsibility for rail and the Interislander to Winston Peters, who set up the iReX project that Nicola Willis cancelled, creating this mess in the first place?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely false. The first thing is that the new Minister for Rail signed up to a project at $775 million, not close to $4 billion, because when Labour people get in charge, they don’t run the money well and they let it blow out. And I’d just say we have the best Minister of Finance this country has seen for a very long time.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I thank the Prime Minister for the chance of putting the record straight. Is it not a fact that what we’re dealing with is a decision in May 2020, it was for the Crown to allocate $400.1 million to KiwiRail to fund the new two ferries project when I was the last Minister, and those are the facts that he cannot deny?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m just very excited to have that member as our new Minister for Rail. I know his leadership, his experience, and his expertise on this subject will be well appreciated.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If he’s so confident that the new Interislander ferries are going to be such better value for money, why can’t he tell New Zealanders, one year on, how much they’re going to cost, who’s going to build them, when they’re going to arrive, whether they’re going to be able to have trains on them, and what the costs for other users are going to be?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That member’s question just illustrates the economic illiteracy from the other side. Because if you knew anything about forming contracts and getting capital approved, you don’t reveal—for commercial sensitivity reasons—the actual budget. That’s quite normal commercial practice. But I appreciate nobody on the front bench has actually run stuff, understands how it works. But I just say to you, I’m very confident we’re going to get a great project and a great result.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: One year after cancelling the order for the previous Interislander ferries, will he now tell the New Zealand public how much the decision to cancel the ferries has cost?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said, our budgets are commercially sensitive—for the reasons I’ve just tried to outline to that member. But what I find quite outrageous is the Leader of the Opposition is the arsonist who lights the fire and then criticises the fire brigade for trying to put it out.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that one of his Ministers—Minister Seymour—said on the bridge today that these ferries will not be rail-enabled?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: These are ferries that will be rail compatible and they will be delivered at a much cheaper price than the $4 billion that it was heading to.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I hesitate to do this, but I don’t believe I actually said that. Therefore, the member is potentially misleading the House, although I suspect unknowingly.

SPEAKER: For whatever reason, I just couldn’t hear what you just said, sorry.

Hon David Seymour: Mr Speaker, I hesitate to raise this, but I don’t believe I actually said that and, therefore, the member is, perhaps unwittingly, misleading the House.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m not quite sure how we progress here. Chlöe Swarbrick, have you in any way misrepresented the statement by David Seymour?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Not that I am aware of, Mr Speaker. I’m more than happy to go away and to check the facts there, but this information has come directly from the tiles.

SPEAKER: That would probably be a good idea and a fair thing.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. 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 especially our action to deliver on net zero 2050. Whatever we hear about climate change from the other side, and it’s often bad news, we’re not pushing up prices higher by turning off natural gas.

Chlöe Swarbrick: It’s just not true.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’re not shutting down industries and driving farmers off the land. We’re not making life harder by forcing Kiwis out of their cars. Here’s the good news: on our plan, we repeal the broken oil and gas ban, we keep agriculture out of the emissions trading scheme, and we still hit net carbon zero six years earlier, in 2044. There’s a lot more to do, but our emissions reduction plan (ERP) 2 plan is a good one. It delivers emissions budget (EB) 1 and 2, and we’re on the right track.

SPEAKER: Can I just tell Government members that their interjections while a Minister from their own side is trying to give an answer are most unhelpful and add nothing to the value of the Minister’s answer.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The member who’s just resumed her seat has previously been admonished by the House for accusing the same member, the Prime Minister, of lying or misleading the House. She’s just been shouting that what the Prime Minister’s saying is “just not true”, which would appear to be doing exactly the same thing. She’s either a very slow learner or doesn’t respect the rules of the House.

SPEAKER: The response to that has to be that it is inappropriate to allege that someone in here is deliberately tampering with the truth, and so I’d ask the member to resist making those sorts of comments across the House.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that his Government’s final emissions reduction plan published today somehow does even a worse job for emissions reduction than his draft version?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’d say to that member is we are committed to delivering on net zero 2050. ERP 2, which we released today, confirms that we are in good shape on EB 1. Emissions budget 2, we’re in good shape. We’ve got more work to do on emissions budget 3, but ever since the draft plan was announced and where we got to today, we’ve actually halved the deficit or the progress that we need to make in that space. That doesn’t kick in till 2031 to 2035. We’ve got some time to sort that out.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why is his Government’s emissions reduction plan actively taking us off track to meet emissions budget 3?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree. It’s delivering EB 1 and EB 2, which is the pathway that gets us to net zero 2050. Equally, it’s encouraging to see that we may be able to reach that goal much quicker, in 2044, six years earlier.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that his Government’s policy decisions to reverse the oil and gas ban, which he just mentioned; cancel the Clean Car Discount; and encourage consenting of new coal mines in its fast-track process will increase emissions by, at a minimum, an extra 81 million tonnes, and will he take responsibility for the long-term impacts of those emissions on behalf of everyone in Aotearoa?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: ERP 2 delivers on EB 2. That’s the pathway by which we hit net zero 2050. I’d just say to that member, we don’t believe in importing Indonesian coal and not having domestic gas as we make that transition. I’d encourage the Green Party to support the end of the oil and gas ban, support us on fast track, and support us on our gene tech legislation as well.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is there any Government policy, statement, or action that would prevent non-executive members of Parliament from the Government side from supporting the Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I haven’t seen the nature of the bill that I understand that member has just announced in the time we were coming into the House. I’m happy to look at it, but what I’d just say to you is that our position has been that those settlements are illegal under international law. The best way forward, as you know, is a two-State solution, and we’ve been taking sanctions against extremist settlers.

Chlöe Swarbrick: So the Prime Minister can confirm that his Government MPs, as a result of no policy, statement, or action currently existing to the opposite—

SPEAKER: Reword that question. You can’t start by telling the Prime Minister what he’s going to say.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister then confirm that his Government MPs are therefore free to vote with their conscience on the Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t know how to explain this, but as I understand it, the member has just proposed a bill. We haven’t seen the bill, so—

Chlöe Swarbrick: It’s in your inbox.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It’s in my inbox from an hour ago. No disrespect; it’s big for you, but there’s a bit more going on as we run the country, so we will get to the bill. I’ll have a good look at the bill, but in fairness, I haven’t seen it.

SPEAKER: I might also point out—[Interruption] That’s enough. I might also point out that a question like that is in the nature of a question to a leader of a party, which is not a position that enables questions to be answered in this House.

Question No. 4—Rail

4. to the Minister for Rail: Does he agree with the statement of the Minister of Finance that “the Government’s alternative ferry solution for the Cook Strait will cost less than the iRex project”; if so, how much will the total Crown contribution be, compared to the $2.2 billion Crown contribution that was planned for project iRex?

Yes, I agree with the Minister of Finance. But in answer to the second part of her question, the member asserts that the Crown’s contribution would have been $2.2 billion for Project iReX, but that seriously understates what had been the case, and Treasury, under the Official Information Act that this information was made available to that member, said it could go past $4 billion.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is he confident that the total Crown contribution will be less than the $2.2 billion agreed under the previous Government for Project iReX?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer to that is most assuredly, or, as Little River Band sang, “Hang on, help is on its way.”

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will he keep the option of rail-enabled ferries open, even though the ferries may be smaller?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that all aspects going forward, having picked up this mess that we inherited, are going to be looked at. We’ll look at every option we possibly can.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Don’t be so harsh on Nicola!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I beg your pardon—say again?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Don’t be so harsh on Nicola!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no, no, no, the poor Minister of Finance was trying to deal with an absolute blowout of people who toss money around like an eight-armed octopus, with no idea what they’re doing with it.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What are the estimated costs of the minimal viable option for the wharves used by KiwiRail in Picton, given they reach their estimated useful life in 2029?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: My answer to that member’s question is that in every aspect we will be frugal and sensible and wise about public expenditure. We’ll be as careful about spending the taxpayer’s money as if we are spending our own money, and that’s why you can be assured that out there in the industry, they’re cheering from the rafters at the change.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What is the estimated cost of an extra 55,000 container move-on, move-off wagons in Wellington and Picton, per year, over the lifetime of the ferries.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I just say that the first aspect of any business negotiation is not to tell the other party what you want. The very advice being given over there shows a certain innocence—no commercial skills, don’t know how to close a deal, don’t know how to start the deal, and, first of all, you’re spending taxpayers’ money while you learn on the job. We’re not going to do that, are we?

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Can he guarantee that the operations currently being undertaken by KiwiRail will not be privatised?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Let me just say that there have been no discussions about that whatsoever on this side of the House.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Can you guarantee?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, one more time, slowly: there have been no discussions whatsoever, so what do you mean any guarantees?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Can you guarantee?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: One more time: there have been no discussions at all, so why would we be required to give a guarantee? Unless, of course, you’ve come to this House with so little experience about the tactics and strategies of being a good Opposition member.

SPEAKER: Just keep the answers away from the interjections—they’re not of great value.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Can he assure the New Zealand public that he will do a better job than the Minister of Finance, who, in a year, has only delivered an announcement?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that the Minister of Finance inherited a disaster. We had hardly come into Government, and there was Treasury saying, “Look, this could blow out. It’s already got to $2.8 billion and it could possibly blow out to $4 billion.” That’s all in the Treasury advice that they had, and they should have shared it with the public as they were coming into the 2023 campaign. Were they transparent? No, they never told the public a darn thing about it, and we picked up this absolute mess. So I’m not blaming the previous Minister at all; I’m just saying, though, that we’ve got a chance to, again, save rail.

Question No. 5—RMA Reform

5. to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: Why is the Government progressing the Fast-track Approvals Bill?

Well—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hold on. Wait. Wait. Surely the barracking could at least wait until the Minister says something. I would suggest that it’s held off for the entire duration of this question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, he needs to hurry up.

SPEAKER: Beg your pardon?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: He needs to hurry up. We haven’t got all day.

SPEAKER: I don’t think that it would be a good idea for MPs to have a time clock put on them. It would be very embarrassing for some. The Hon Chris Bishop—in your own time.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: In answer to the question: because we are a Government focused relentlessly on economic growth. For too long, Governments have accepted our slow-growth status quo, cemented in the ways of the past, unwilling to make the critical trade-offs between the things we need for growth and the impacts those things inevitably have. We are not satisfied with slow, anaemic growth. That is why we are progressing the Fast-track Approvals Bill to help rebuild this economy.

Tim van de Molen: What benefits does he expect New Zealanders to see as a result of this bill?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, there are enormous public benefits to New Zealanders from these regionally and nationally significant projects. The projects listed in the bill, in the schedule agreed in the committee of the whole House earlier this morning, enable 55,000 houses; 143,000 tonnes of aquaculture and farming projects; 180 kilometres of new road, rail, and public transport; 3 gigawatts of additional renewable energy generation; and a significant boost to our resources sector. These projects will help rebuild and grow our economy after years of mismanagement.

Tim van de Molen: What benefit will those 55,000 homes have?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, this Government has inherited a housing crisis, which has been driven by unnecessary planning barriers in place of new housing developments. Report after report has said that our planning system is at the heart of our housing affordability challenge. Our Going for Housing Growth plan will help, so will fast track and making sure that private developers—because the vast bulk of housing in New Zealand is built by the private sector—can get out there and build houses that they want to build and that New Zealanders want to live in. And fast track is about removing those red-tape and green-tape barriers that get in the way of houses New Zealanders need.

Tim van de Molen: What does he say to those who are concerned about fast track?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I say to those that are concerned that we can protect the environment and grow our economy at the same time. If we want to end our housing crisis, support fast track. If you want more jobs in our cities and our regions, support fast track. If you want more renewable energy, support fast track. If you want modern roads, rail, and public transport, support fast track. If you want a growing economy, fast track is where it’s at.

Hon Shane Jones: Given his reference to the protection of key features of the environment, can he confirm that frogs will be relocated and will continue to live on?

SPEAKER: No, no. That might be an interesting proposition, but it’s not something he can be responsible for.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

6. 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: Would he and his Cabinet have signed off on all 149 projects to be included in the Fast-track Approvals Bill if he had been aware of the ongoing environmental breaches from some of those companies, detailed as recently as this morning in an RNZ article titled “Second audit finds more consent breaches by OceanaGold’s Otago Macraes mine”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m very excited about fast track, for the reason that the Minister for Infrastructure just outlined. We need to grow our way out of a recession caused by the Labour-Greens Government, and one of the ways we do that is we get modern, reliable infrastructure in this country. We’ve got to build things faster and at lower cost and quicker, and fast track’s cracking through the system, it’s breaking the system to get things done.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Would he and his Cabinet have signed off on all 149 projects to progress through the Fast-track Approvals Bill if they had known about the founder of a company associated with one of those fast-track projects having been previously investigated by the Serious Fraud Office?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m not going to comment on individual projects, but what I will comment on is the excitement that we could have 55,000 new homes; the excitement that we could have 180 kilometres of new roads in this country, which would be brilliant; 30 percent growth in renewable electricity generation. They’re all good things, designed to get our regional and national economy growing.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister comfortable with continuing to progress the Fast-track Approvals Bill through the committee stage, despite advice from the Clerk that his Government’s Amendment Paper could be in the nature of private legislation and the subsequent ruling that stated, “It is undesirable, in principle, for Parliament to make law that is only for the benefit of specific private persons.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, that’s a matter for the Speaker, but I’m very proud that fast track is moving through the House exactly as it should, and that’s incredibly exciting.

Question No. 7—Climate Change

7. to the Minister of Climate Change: What proportion of total emissions cuts projected between the period 2026-35 are attributed to unproven or disproven technologies?

In answer to the question: none. Experts in the Ministry for the Environment completed the modelling for the Government’s second emissions reductions plan (ERP). They worked closely with technical experts across the Government and private sector to ensure that all projections were justified and reasonable.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: How can he have confidence in carbon capture and storage achieving the 100 percent capture and storage of emissions from the Kapuni gas field that is assumed in his plan’s modelling, given globally not a single carbon capture and storage project has ever reached its target carbon dioxide capture rate, and no existing project has consistently captured more than 80 percent of carbon, and real-world capture rates range from 10 to 72 percent?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, what is interesting is that internationally, countries like Norway are already storing carbon dioxide and have been doing so for several decades, and we understand from industry that this process is feasible here in New Zealand. This is credible as carbon dioxide is already removed as part of the existing production process, leaving the natural gas remaining. Our officials have been and taken a conservative approach to modelling the expected removals. Carbon capture, utilisation, and storage is real and happening all over the world today.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What changes were made to baseline projections from the interim projections in the ERP 2 discussion documents to the final plan as a result of the New Zealand Steel deal achieving more emissions reductions faster than initially projected?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Officials have worked through the modelling and taken into account all of the changes that were made in regards to different aspects of the economy. Our plan reflects the best estimate in terms of where those initiatives are at, and that includes all aspects across our broader economy.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Why has his Government chosen to scrap proven emissions reduction strategies such as the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund, which produced the 1.8 megatonne increase in baseline projections, and instead rely on policies that are best described as speculative and unproven?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, unlike the grinches on the opposite side, this side of the House today is celebrating an emissions plan that puts us on track and on a pathway for net zero as early as 2044. That is a success and that demonstrates the confidence and capability on this side of the House to ensure that we are managing emissions reduction in this country while also protecting our economy.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Do New Zealand taxpayers, who may face liabilities of up to $24 billion if the Government fails to meet its international climate targets, deserve a plan that relies on more than just speculative technology advancements to cut more than half of the emissions projected in the plan he released today?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, I am proud that this Government today has reflected and published an ERP 2 plan that shows that we are on track for the first two emissions budgets and, most importantly, net zero by 2044 at the earliest. The technology that the member references that is unproven—and this is an example of what that technology could look like, that will go into cows to reduce biogenic methane—is happening under development in this country already by scientists and innovators, and we should back those individuals and we should back our agricultural sector and not always put them down.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does he agree with Todd McClay, who says the Government won’t buy overseas carbon credits to meet emissions targets?

Hon SIMON WATTS: I always will acknowledge and reflect the positions of the very wise Todd McClay. It is clear that we need to ensure that we are on track in terms of all of our targets, and we will be looking at the international components very soon.

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Prime Minister stand by his comments that Crown-Māori relationships are “probably worse” than they were a year ago?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I’ve said, I think the discussion around the Treaty principles bill—there are strong feelings on all sides of that topic. I’d also say that the previous administration built a lot of division and a lot of frustration across New Zealand with some of its actions that it didn’t make the public case for and didn’t take the public on.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What role does he think he has played in making the relationship—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, I’ll tell you what: all commentary will stop when a question is being asked. Afford the member that respect.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What role does he think he has played in making the relationship worse?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, as I’ve explained before, we have a difference of opinion within the coalition Government about this issue. Neither party got what they wanted but, in an MMP environment, we found a very sensible compromise and we’re working our way through it.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why is the Prime Minister still using the coalition agreement as an excuse for the division the Treaty principles bill has caused when it wasn’t even a bottom line for the ACT Party?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’re in an MMP environment—and a modern, mature MMP environment—and we make space for all the parties in our coalition Government.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Given he has accepted the International Court of Justice ruling to issue an arrest warrant on the Israel Prime Minister, when, if ever, will the Prime Minister support sanctions on Israel?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we have been very clear about sanctions—travel sanctions, travel bans on extremist settlers in the occupied territories. That’s been a longstanding position and we’ve continued, through the course of this year, to ratchet that up.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, please, Mr Speaker. The question was specific: when, if ever, will the Prime Minister support sanction on Israel? Not settlers.

SPEAKER: Well, I think he just answered by saying that there have been progressive sanctions throughout the year. I don’t think he can be more specific than that.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is the Prime Minister doing to stop the illegal occupation of Gaza?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have been consistent in our position, and I’m actually very proud of the centrist line that we’ve taken, given the strong feeling on all sides of this debate. I think you’ve seen us come out with joint statements with the Prime Ministers of Canada and Australia articulating our position, and we have called both parties to account. We want to see both sides come together, get round the table, have a proper ceasefire, and most fully develop a two-State solution.

Question No. 9—Justice

9. to the Associate Minister of Justice: How is the Government proposing to strengthen the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill?

This week, I intend to table an Amendment Paper to the House to strengthen the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill. The amendment ensures that strikes recorded under the original three-strikes regime repealed by the previous Labour Government are carried over into the new regime. Offenders who have committed repeat sexual and violent crimes should not escape accountability for their previous actions. This change reflects our Government’s commitment to public safety by ensuring that repeat serious offenders are kept off our streets and out of our communities.

Todd Stephenson: What support has the Minister received for this amendment?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Submitters feared that without this change, offenders who had already received warnings under the previous regime would not face consequences under the new regime until they reoffended and received a new warning. To address these concerns, I will table amendments at the committee of the whole House stage to ensure that consistent strikes are carried through into the new regime, holding repeat offenders accountable and protecting communities from their offending.

Todd Stephenson: How is the Minister ensuring that strikes carried over from the previous regime remain consistent with the new regime?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: While the Justice Committee supported the reactivation of strikes from the previous regime, it also recommended that only warnings consistent with the new qualifying sentence thresholds be reactivated, and I agree with this approach and have amended the bill to clarify that strikes issued under the old regime will only be carried across if they meet the qualifying criteria of the new regime. This ensures fairness and consistency while upholding the objective of the legislation.

Todd Stephenson: How is the reinstatement of the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill with these changes likely to impact on prison population?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: It’s estimated that the prison population will increase by 130, to 210 prisoners over the next 10 years due to the reinstatement of the three-strikes regime. We make no apologies for locking away the worst offenders for longer.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Given the desire of the Government to reduce the number of victims of serious crime in this country, does she agree with the basic principle that a good place to start is with those who are serious repeat offenders who have created many victims already, and that is the fundamental purpose of the three-strikes legislation?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Yes. It is important that this Government sticks to its commitment of looking after the victims of crime. When we look at the Māori population specifically, nearly two-thirds of them are reported to be victims of crime. And it is them that we will also be supporting with the introduction of this new regime.

Question No. 10—Agriculture

10. to the Minister of Agriculture: What actions has the Government taken to protect highly productive food-producing land in New Zealand?

Last week in Southland, the Prime Minister and I announced the Government will set clear rules to limit farm-to-forest conversions from entering the emissions trading scheme (ETS). These changes deliver on a key Government commitment to protect food production for farmers while providing ETS certainty for foresters. They also address the previous Government’s failed ETS policies that incentivised large-scale conversions, created ETS complexity, and undermined our world-best primary producers. [Interruption from gallery]

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Kia kaha!

Hon TODD McCLAY: Last week’s announcements will help safeguard New Zealand’s most productive farmland, while allowing—[Interruption from gallery]

SPEAKER: Minister—the Minister will stop. [Interruption from gallery stopped] That outburst is going to cause some other discussion and probably a ruling from me next time the House formally sits. The Hon Todd McClay will—

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I hesitate again, but I notice that—

SPEAKER: Speak up, then.

Hon David Seymour: A member of the House was yelling “Kia kaha!” at those strangers making the disturbance. To encourage and actually to speak to the gallery is in breach of the Standing Orders generally. But to actually encourage that sort of undermining of the House, I would argue, is another breach of privilege.

SPEAKER: Then the member knows that he should write to me if that’s his broader concern. I didn’t see it or hear it—I was watching what was happening in the gallery. The question can be asked again.

Suze Redmayne: What actions has the Government taken to protect highly productive food-producing land in New Zealand?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Last week in Southland, the Prime Minister and I announced the Government will set clear rules to limit farm-to-forest conversions entering into the emissions trading scheme. These changes deliver on a key Government commitment to protect food production for farmers while providing ETS certainty for foresters. They also address the previous Government’s failed ETS policies that incentivised—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. In this instance, I have the benefit of hearing that answer the first time around, and I had hoped that they would stop after that first part, which is fine. This is a question by their own side, and it is inappropriate for Government Ministers to state as if it’s fact a point of debate or a point of opinion about the previous Government’s record. What the Minister said the first time around and was about to say then is incorrect and is very much a debatable point, and they shouldn’t be allowed to just state that—which is clearly a political point—as if it’s fact.

SPEAKER: That is true. My apologies. I was actually still thinking about the incident that took place, and not fully paying attention. But I will just say to the Minister: confine his remarks to efforts of the Government, not criticism of previous administrations.

Hon TODD McCLAY: Yes. Thank you, Mr Speaker. They also address the previous Government’s policies that incentivised large-scale conversions, creating ETS complexity and undermined—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: It’s just not true.

Hon TODD McCLAY: —our world-best primary producers.

SPEAKER: Hang on, just a minute.

Hon TODD McCLAY: Last week’s announcements—

SPEAKER: Sorry, stop. What is the problem? Stand up and speak about it, because I can’t hear what’s actually a problem with that. It’s not unreasonable for a Minister to talk about something that a previous Government did. It is unreasonable to attack a previous Government or an Opposition for their time in a previous Government. He’s not doing that; he’s talking about somebody else making a comment.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Well, Mr Speaker, in fairness, I raised a point of order. That was dealt with. Now I’m responding to what he’s saying. If I had an issue with what he was saying, I would have raised another point of order.

SPEAKER: OK. Sorry, it’s just you were saying so much over here, perhaps I was a bit confused as to who I should be listening to! Make the rest of the answer brief.

Hon TODD McCLAY: Thank you. Last week’s announcement will help safeguard New Zealand’s most productive farmland while allowing space for sustainable forestry growth and ensuring landlords retain the ability to make informed, smart land-use decisions that enhance both profitability and sustainable outcomes.

Suze Redmayne: What policy measures did the Government announce to protect food production in New Zealand?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, the Government announced several clarifying changes to limit farm-to-forest conversion from entering the ETS. These include a moratorium on exotic forest registration for land-use classification (LUC) one through five farmland that’s actively farmed; an annual registration cap of 15,000 hectares of exotic forest registering on land six farmland; the ability of farmers to plant up to 25 percent of LUC one through five land in forestry while maintaining flexibility and choice; property-level LUC reassessments for land categorising ensuring accuracy and fairness; exemptions for certain Māori-owned land categories to honour Treaty obligations while ensuring pathways for economic development; and also transitional exemptions for landowners with intention to plant trees prior to 4 December 2024. These changes strike the right balance between protecting productive farmland and ensuring sustainable forestry development.

Suze Redmayne: Why did the Government decide to make these changes to farm-to-forest emissions trading scheme rules?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, as I said in answer to the primary question, the previous Government’s ETS policies incentivised large-scale land conversions and they created ETS complexity, which was one of the reasons why the carbon auction failed so many times before the last election. They also led to undermining world-best primary producers. These new rules address these significant challenges. They provide much-needed certainty for ETS participants, enabling farmers, foresters, and investors to plan ahead with confidence. At the same time, these changes preserve New Zealand’s ability to produce high-quality, safe, sustainable food that is demanded globally whilst protecting the rural economy.

Suze Redmayne: What additional measures has the Government announced to improve farm and rural productivity?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, last week, I announced, with the full support of hard-working local MPs Katie Nimon and Catherine Wedd, that the Government is co-investing $995,000 to expand the Land for Life pilot project in the Hawke’s Bay. This programme helps farmers and growers plant trees on low-quality farmland so they can adapt to changing conditions, prevent erosion, and generate additional income through carbon credits and timber on low-quality farmland. We estimate that this will benefit $380 million in cumulative economic gains for participating farmers over 30 years, and $1.5 billion in avoided cost from reduced landslides. This is just another way the Government supports our rural sector.

Question No. 11—Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti

11. to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: Does he stand by his statements regarding the Māori-Crown relationship?

Yes, and this Government is committed to outcomes, not outbursts over Māori-Crown relations. There are many people out there that don’t like the fact that we support over 20 Māori-led or partnered projects through the fast-track process, that we have recently offered, through Minister “Metekōura”, the Kororipo Pā to Ngāti Rēhia on behalf of Ngāpuhi, or that Matua Tararā, Minister Jones, has offered support to Waitangi, Parihaka, and Rātana through the Regional Infrastructure Fund. But we’re into action, not acting up.

Hon Peeni Henare: Who is correct: Tama Potaka, who said in response to my oral question on 7 November that the Māori-Crown relationship had been strengthened under this Government, or the Prime Minister, who said that the relationship was probably worse under this Government?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The Prime Minister is correct, and I am also correct. We can have things at a low ebb but continue to strengthen Māori-Crown relations. It’s in this vein that I turn to Minister Mātauranga, Minister Stanford, with her great Māori Education Action Plan, and the work that my erudite colleague Minister Watts is doing with the Pou Take Āhuararangi or the climate change pou or the national Iwi Chairs Forum to ensure adaptation of many, many marae to climate change.

Hon Peeni Henare: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Yeah, just wait for a moment.

Hon Peeni Henare: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What specific bill, if any, has he introduced in his capacity as Māori-Crown relations Minister that has strengthened the Māori-Crown relationship?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I continue to support and lead the ongoing progress of the Ō-Rākau bill, which was fomented as a result of Prime Minister John Key and Minister Christopher Finlayson to ensure that that particular piece of property—whenua—is returned to the three iwi around that: Maniapoto, Raukawa, and Waikato.

Hon Peeni Henare: Does he agree with Ngāti Toa chair Helmut Modlik, who said that he found the Minister’s response to be “so dishonest that he couldn’t sit there and listen to that a moment longer”, and, if so, does he think this is the reason why the Government has been uninvited from any future iwi chairs meetings?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Can I just correct the honourable member’s comments: Helmut Modlik is actually the CEO of Ngāti Toa Rangatira and not the chair of Ngāti Toa Rangatira—fact-check. The second thing is that Ngāti Toa CEO Helmut Modlik returned to the Whare the week after that particular comment and was very supportive and enthusiastic about my responses in relation to a number of questions that were of a very similar nature.

Hon Shane Jones: Can the Minister confirm that a key strand of Māori-Crown relations is economic empowerment, and with the passage of legislation extending marine farming permits until 2050, that that represents certainty and confidence for the large Māori presence in that particular industry?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Absolutely. And I can also acknowledge the significant efforts around Māori businesses who are exporting serious levels of kai moana to international markets. And we will continue to support it through aquaculture and other efforts in the primary industry, especially with the good work of Minister McClay ensuring that the appropriate international deals are curated.

Hon Peeni Henare: What risks have Te Arawhiti officials outlined—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on—sorry. How long is this going to go on for? The rules are pretty simple: if someone is asking a question, no one else speaks—basic respect for other members. The Hon Peeni Henare.

Hon Peeni Henare: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What risks have Te Arawhiti officials outlined regarding Ministers attending Waitangi 2025?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: A number of officials, as well as iwi leaders and others, have outlined various risks but also the enormous upsides of the continued engagement between the Ministers of the Crown, the Cabinet, and other members of this Government attending various events in the Māori calendar—but also ensuring that we are absolutely focused on delivering on the needs of Māori, rather than various acting up and outbursts that we often see.

Hon Peeni Henare: Will he recommend to the Prime Minister to immediately stop the Treaty principles bill from progressing any further to prevent a future hate tour?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Excuse me, e te Māngai o te Whare, I just didn’t hear the last phrase that was mentioned. I just ask if that question can be asked again.

SPEAKER: Just repeat the whole question.

Hon Peeni Henare: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will he recommend to the Prime Minister to immediately stop the Treaty principles bill from progressing any further to prevent further division in this country?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Kei te tautoko au i tā te Pirīmia i whakatau ai. Kāore tēnei rōpū, te pāti kahurangi, i te tautoko i te anga whakamua o te Pire Mātāpono Tiriti ki tua o te komiti arotake.

[I support the decision made by the Prime Minister. This party, the blue party, does not support the progression of the Treaty principles bill beyond select committee.]

Question No. 12—Conservation

12. to the Minister of Conservation: What recent announcements has he made about Mautohe Cathedral Cove?

On 1 December 2024, I attended and announced the restoration of public walking access to Mautohe Cathedral Cove in time for the summer tourist season. Mautohe Cathedral Cove plays an important role in supporting the local economy in the grand electorate of Coromandel. And this reopening is an exciting step in the region’s tourism recovery following storms and COVID-19 lockdowns. Manuhiri to the area are predicted to bring an estimated $12 million into the region annually. I’ve committed to Ngāti Hei and community leaders to ensure this first stage was delivered in time for the high numbers expected this tourist season. I want to thank everyone—Te Papa Atawhai, other officials, those that worked on it, contractors—for delivering on this commitment.

Hon Scott Simpson: How important are these kinds of attractions for regional economies like the Coromandel, including tourism and employment?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As I regularly am reminded by the member for the Coromandel, it’s very evident at Mautohe Cathedral Cove. In the Punangairi visitors centre I recently opened at Paparoa National Park, significant numbers of international manuhiri come to see our spectacular coastal views, unique flora and fauna, and learn about tangata whenua relationships and responsibilities. Adverse weather events are increasingly impacting the safe operations of these kinds of attractions. The Department of Conservation (DOC), Te Papa Atawhai, is considering the second stage of development at Mautohe, which is intended to provide more resilient access to better withstand some of these ongoing issues. These are the challenges that we have to deal with at DOC while simultaneously applying its finite resources to protecting biodiversity, heritage landscapes, and other matters.

Hon Scott Simpson: How is the Department of Conservation going to meet these kinds of challenges for areas like the Coromandel in the future to ensure that we can continue to enjoy the beauty and richness of our landscapes and creatures?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Thank you for that pātai. We are now actively seeking—through consultation, hui, and submissions—public views on options for modernising conservation management. This includes simplifying conservation rules, ensuring that processes are fit for purpose so businesses and others can more easily ensure quality experience, maximising benefits from commercial and recreational activities on conservation land to support nature and local communities, and increasing flexibility for land exchanges or disposals that align with conservation and community and other needs. And I’m encouraging everyone to have their say and to submit by the end of February 2025.