Oral Questions

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

Yes, and especially our action to crack down on gang activity. At midnight tonight, a raft of tough new laws will take effect. Gang insignia will be banned in all public places, courts will be able to issue non-consorting orders, and police will be able to stop criminal gang members from associating and communicating. Greater weight will also be given to gang membership at sentencing, enabling courts to impose more severe punishments. Gangs aren’t community groups. They’re not Rotary. They thrive on destroying the lives of other New Zealanders, whether that’s by peddling drugs or through brutal acts of violence that leave communities in fear. We promised to restore law and order, and tomorrow, police will have more powers to do exactly that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement: “Casey Costello is very focused on lowering smoking rates and I’m comfortable”; if so, is he comfortable with the news that both daily smoking and vaping rates have risen under his watch, with 16,000 more daily smokers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just say that the Minister is working incredibly hard to make sure that we deliver on Smokefree 2025, but we know that the last group of smokers to come off daily smoking is going to be incredibly hard to move. But we’ve got a great plan and we’re working hard at it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement that he and Casey Costello will “deal with that really hard-core group of smokers as we try and get that target down to 5 percent. All she’s done is propose alternatives”; if so, are efforts to target that hard-core group by proposing so-called alternatives working?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I’d say to the member is we’re very focused on four attempts as we try and deal with this last, hard-core group of smokers. That involves us increasing quit attempts, it means we’re improving access to quit support, it means that we’re supporting people to stay smoke-free, and we’re going to reduce the uptake of smoking.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What is the return on investment on the $216 million tax break to tobacco companies his Government has given, apparently to encourage smokers to quit, when it has demonstrably failed, with the first rise in daily smokers in New Zealand’s recent history?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, the member has difficulty understanding economics, and that was clearly obvious by the economic mess that he left behind after six years in Government. What we have accrued, as you know, is an accounting accrual, essentially, for a loss of excise tax, should we be super successful in taking people off cigarettes and into alternatives. That’s a good thing. We’re just making sure that we are fiscally prudent and managing the economy well—as we do—instead of the mess that you left behind.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How difficult is it, Prime Minister, for someone to work out that if the last calculation accurately at the time was $6 million, it could never get to $216 million in the next day in the way that that last question was phrased, and, second, that we are in the best three performers in the world because of legislation that was written by New Zealand First and not the Labour Party?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I would just pick up on that point that the member raises, which is that when you look at comparable smoking rates from around the world, the UK sits at 11.9 percent, the US at 11.6 percent, Canada at 8.3 percent, Australia at 8.3 percent, and we’re at 6.9 percent. We’re making good progress.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So is he asserting that the fact that more people are smoking now than when he became Prime Minister, and the Government is, therefore, collecting more tax from that, is a sign of success?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. What we’re saying is that we have more work to do with a very strong cohort of daily smokers. We need to redouble our efforts and work even harder. It’s a harder task, but we’re doing everything we can to do that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he admit that he was wrong to submit to New Zealand First and scrap New Zealand’s world-leading smoke-free legislation, just as he was wrong to submit to the ACT Party and support the Treaty principles bill?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the characterisation of that question. I’m proud of our coalition partners and I’m proud of the work that this coalition Government is doing to clean up the ungodly mess that that member left behind after six years of economic mismanagement, letting crime get out of control, and delivering worse outcomes for New Zealanders.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What does it say about his negotiating skills or, indeed, his priorities that he is willing to provoke conflict between the Crown and Māori and increase the number of Kiwi smokers just to form a coalition with parties who had nowhere else to go anyway?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the characterisation of that question.

Question No. 2—Children

2. to the Minister for Children: Will she commit to retaining strategic partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations, as recommended in the select committee report on the repeal of section 7AA; if not, why not?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The repeal of section 7AA is about ensuring the safety and wellbeing of children in care is at the forefront of all decision making. I’ve always said that strategic partnerships should continue, and I’ve made my expectations clear to officials that they should continue the good work that is being done in this space, if the agreement is working in a positive way to the betterment of children. I also made it very clear in my first reading speech that nothing in this bill prevents Oranga Tamariki from retaining its current strategic partnerships or from entering new partnerships with iwi, hapū, and Māori organisations. In regards to specific recommendations in the select committee report, I want to thank those who made submissions and those who appeared before the committee in person, and I also want to thank the select committee for their careful deliberation and consideration on the bill. I will consider the recommendations and take advice before making any decisions on next steps.

Kahurangi Carter: Why does she not recognise the value of reporting on outcomes and disparities for tamariki Māori, given she has now recognised the need for strategic partnerships?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: In regards to reporting, we have a number of ways that can be reported on issues in that space. We have a report from the Independent Children’s Monitor in this space, we have the National Care Standards report that reports on outcomes for Māori and young people and their whānau, we have an annual Oranga Tamariki report that reports in this space, and under section 448B of the Oranga Tamariki Act, the Minister for Children is required to report on whether the legislation and Government policy meets the needs of children and young people.

Kahurangi Carter: So does she believe that requiring the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki to consider and report on outcomes for Māori limits the ability to serve tamariki Māori, and, if not, would she also reconsider retaining this 7AA requirement?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: In regards to the first part of the question, what I think is important for the CE of Oranga Tamariki to concentrate on is making sure that the children that come into the care of Oranga Tamariki are safe, healthy, and loved.

Kahurangi Carter: Will she commit to reconsidering other aspects of this repeal to better reflect select committee evidence, Whanaketia, and Waitangi Tribunal findings that tino rangatiratanga over kāinga and protection and active partnership must be enshrined in care, and, if not, why not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: When it comes to Māori children in care, I can tell you: Māori children are no different to any other child. They want to feel safe, they want to feel loved, and they want to feel like they belong. And they want to know that when they wake up tomorrow, they’re going to be safe.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she accept Dr Luke Fitzmaurice’s select committee submission argument that “There is no clash between tikanga and safety … In reality, the two are intertwined.”, and, if so, how can she go ahead with repealing any aspect of 7AA?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: No, I don’t disagree, and I’ve never said that the two clash. What I have said is that the safety and wellbeing of children must be first and foremost when we’re making decisions about all children in care. Every child deserves to feel safe and loved.

Kahurangi Carter: Will she admit, now select committee has reported back, that it was a mistake to introduce a bill that would fully repeal section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, and, if not, why not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: As I’ve said, I will consider the recommendations and take advice before making any decisions in the next step. But, no, I stand by my decision, because I’m proud of the fact that we are redirecting Oranga Tamariki back to their core purpose, which is the safety and wellbeing of children.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Acting Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement, “we had set a very clear plan that it will allow the books to return to an OBEGAL surplus in 2027/28”; if so, is she committed to reaching an OBEGAL surplus no matter the cost?

On behalf of the Minister of Finance, I stand by my full statement, which was, “we had set a very clear plan that it will allow the books to return to an OBEGAL surplus in 2027-28. If we had stuck to the spending plans of the last Government, that date would have been pushed out until 2031, an unacceptable outcome.” In answer to the second part of the question, no.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the chief economist of Treasury correct when he said, in order to reach that goal, that the “implied speed and size of this decline is generally unprecedented in recent history in New Zealand.”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, as the fiscal strategy report in Budget 2024 makes clear, the Government is not going to be a slave to a surplus target. It is correct that over the last few years each update to the economic forecast has involved a deterioration in the outlook, which then flows through into the fiscal forecast. The member will have to wait and see what happens in the half-year update. I’m also advised that the person that the member just quotes, the Chief Economic Adviser of Treasury, is giving a speech tomorrow which gives the background to some of the forecast revisions, and in particular the role of Treasury’s assumptions about underlying productivity trends. I know the member will be reading it.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she plan to shift more services to user-pays to help reach surplus?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, I’m not ruling out revenue measures like user-pays. The Government, as a general rule, believes that people who benefit from services should pay for them. For example, we have outlined a programme of work around toll roads, which the member will be well familiar with, all of which is designed to align the beneficiaries of infrastructure investment paying for it. That is one example of user-pays: toll roads.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Would shifting publicly run services like education or health to the private sector help her reach a surplus?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, I reject the assumption behind the member’s question. The Government has a public health service and a public education service. We are focused on driving better performance and delivery out of those two very significant items of State spending. The Ministry of Education is extremely focused on our education system actually (a) getting kids to attend school, and (b) making sure when they’re there they learn how to read and write, unlike the focus of the last Government. The man sitting next to me is very focused on delivering better value for money out of the health system.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she guarantee no reduction in front-line services to reach surplus?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, the driving focus of this Government’s fiscal reprioritisation so far has been to make sure that services flow not to the back office but to the front line.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Acting Minister of Finance: What information has she recently released to improve agencies’ accountability for Government investments?

Hon Member: Wake up.

Hon Chris Bishop: My apologies.

SPEAKER: The Hon—

Hon Chris Bishop: I’m not used to being so high up the batting order.

SPEAKER: That’s good. Just wait till you’re called. We waited for you; you’ll wait for me to call you. The Hon Chris Bishop.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Minister of Finance, this morning I released the September Quarterly Investment Report (QIR), which outlines key information on large central government investments. The Quarterly Investment Report is a key mechanism for the Government to intervene to ensure projects are on track. It’s also a tool for the public to hold agencies in the Government to account for investment performance. It’s the second QIR we’ve released publicly. The first was in August, and we’re going to continue to publish these reports to provide the transparency that taxpayers deserve out of the investment that the Crown is making.

Stuart Smith: What does the latest Quarterly Investment Report show?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, the latest QIR shows the significant investment activity across the pipeline. There’s 198 investments in delivery with a combined budget of $85.7 billion, and 176 investments in planning worth close to $80 billion. I do want to say, though, that the data also shows there are still issues with the quality and completeness of data reported by Government agencies. It’s not good enough. Good data is critical for good decision making. We are a Government that is focused on better long-term planning, more fulsome reporting, and stronger monitoring. We will be demanding, as a Government, better information from central government agencies to allow Cabinet to make better decisions.

Stuart Smith: How will quarterly investment reporting hold agencies to account?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, today’s release includes chief executive attestations. These are a formal signal as to whether or not agencies’ investment practices meet Cabinet rules. It’s really important that we learn what Government agencies are following Cabinet rules and what Government agencies are not. One example, to pick up some data from the report, is asset management. It is true to say that agencies and, by extension, decision makers do not know enough about the condition or age of the Crown’s assets and plans to maintain them. This is something the Government is extremely focused on and doing a lot of work on. Asset management and asset maintenance have been something that has been underdone by central government for too long.

Stuart Smith: How are central government projects tracking for on-time and on-budget delivery?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, we all want on-time and on-budget projects. The latest data shows that 83 percent of investments are on budget and there’s still $2 billion of cost escalation, and the September QIR shows that 87 percent of investments are tracking to their currently approved time frames, but only 54 percent are tracking to their original time lines. There’s a long history of grand pronouncements, including by the previous Government, where projects are meant to be delivered by a certain date but then exceed those. It is true to say that we need to do a better job across the Government around this. We have work under way to improve project cost and time lines. This is business as usual, good standard investment practice. We are fixing the foundations of our infrastructure investment system.

SPEAKER: Franco Hernandez.

Francisco Hernandez: Francisco Hernandez, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does she also intend to hold Ministers accountable for Government investments; if so, will she hold herself accountable for making slash-and-burn cuts to critical public services that we rely on, like the Dunedin Hospital rebuild, while she’s giving billions of dollars of tax giveaways to landlords and hundreds of millions of tax cuts to tobacco companies?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, there’s any number of factual inaccuracies in that question. Firstly, the Government is not slashing and burning. Secondly, in relation to the Dunedin Hospital, the member seems to have missed the fact that, in March, the Government committed an extra $290 million to the project, bringing the total appropriated amount for the new Dunedin Hospital project to $1.88 billion. In fact, the member highlights exactly why the Government is focused on the Quarterly Investment Reports and rebuilding the foundations of our infrastructure investment system. The Dunedin Hospital project, as has been publicly now released, was subject to no less than four gateway reviews under the previous Government; the last three of which highlighted it as a red-amber project. To put that into vernacular, a red gateway project means that it is at significant risk of critical non-delivery. The last Government received all of those gateway reports and did precisely nothing about it. We have now inherited a situation—

SPEAKER: Yup, that’s good. [Interruption] That’s enough. [Interruption] That’s enough! Ministers need to keep their answers relatively concise. There’s a trend to get very long answers. I look at the seconds being taken up in answers and they are progressively getting longer, which is not—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: And preferably, keep them true.

SPEAKER: When I’m talking, no one else is.

Francisco Hernandez: Is the reason why the Minister is ranting instead of answering the question because she’s afraid to hold Ministers to account because she knows that her directive to prioritise needs not race, and slash-and-burn cuts to the Public Service will lead to underinvestment in Māori health, education, and wellbeing?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. That question cannot be allowed to stand. You cannot get up and make a lot of baseless allegations without any evidence at all, and I don’t care whether you’ve got any experience; we’re going to have standards in this House. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I’m pleased that everyone else has got an opinion. Keep them to yourself. Would the member like to rephrase his question. Bring it into order.

Francisco Hernandez: Absolutely. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is the Minister afraid of holding Ministers to account—

SPEAKER: No, you can’t do that. You’re out.

Francisco Hernandez: Is the Minister—

SPEAKER: Sorry. No, you just lost it. You can’t make a statement like that.

Question No. 5—Education

5. to the Minister of Education: Does she agree with National MP Erica Stanford, who, in May 2023, said, “The public and school bus systems are failing us. Every day buses are cancelled leaving people stranded. Kids are being left behind when trying to get to school”; if so, why are school bus routes to close up and down the country?

As the member knows, I made that comment as the local member of Parliament for East Coast Bays in relation to a public meeting that I held in my electorate when a shortage of bus drivers was impacting Auckland Transport, both public bus and public school bus routes. The quotation is directly in relation to the provision of public transport for children. To the second part, Auckland Transport does not operate up and down the country; public buses and public school buses do—however, I do not have ministerial responsibility for those.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does she agree with Claudia Heaps, a Hawke’s Bay mother, who said that “I can’t believe they would make something as basic as getting to school a challenge for kids, especially in the light of talking about improving attendance records.”; if not, why not?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I would say to that mother and all parents across the motu that these decisions are operational. The policy has not changed and if a child is eligible for the ministry’s transport assistance, they will get it. The only time that a ministry-operated bus route will close is because a public bus has been established, the number of students has dropped below eight—where, then, we pay members of that family a conveyancing allowance—or if a route was merged with another route.

SPEAKER: Question number six—

Hon Jan Tinetti: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry, apologies. My sincere apologies.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does she agree with Rural Women New Zealand president Gill Naylor, who said, “In rural areas, there’s no public transport options, there’s no footpaths or cycleways, our roads are not safe for kids to be biking to school.”, and, if so, why is she allowing rural school bus routes to close?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I would say to that person the same answer I gave to the person in the second question.

Hon Jan Tinetti: What options are there for schools who have had their school bus routes cancelled and now have students stranded at home and unable to learn?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I said in my second question, if a route is stopped it is for those reasons, and what we do when the numbers of children drop below eight is we pay families a conveyancing allowance to help them get their children to school.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Why is the Minister not taking any steps to protect rural school bus routes and is allowing them to be cancelled on her watch?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: We are taking responsibility and that’s why in February of this year I’ve instigated a work programme to make sure that bus services for eligible students are fair and equitable across the country, and that work programme is under way. I would also like to point out that the member who asked the question had six years to sort it out and did nothing.

Hon Simeon Brown: What reports has she seen on Auckland’s public transport network becoming more convenient for students?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: In relation to the primary question, I’ve seen great news for students in Auckland who take the bus, train, and ferries to get to and from school. This week marks the first week that students in Auckland have more ways to pay on Auckland’s public transport network; in addition to HOP cards, students can now tag on and off using contactless debit cards as well as Apple Pay, Google Pay, and their smartphones and smartwatches. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.

SPEAKER: I was too polite to cancel that question, but I should have. The primary question was essentially about rural bus transports—

Hon Chris Penk: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, you can’t take one, there’s a queue of them, all right?

Hon Chris Penk: I’ll get in line.

SPEAKER: Yeah. Well, certainly the answers have been up to that point.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: My point of order is that when the Minister was trying to answer, fully seven people over there were shouting—not separately, all together at the same time. I don’t know how they heard each other, let alone heard the Minister, but we couldn’t hear her.

SPEAKER: Yep, that is an ongoing problem, and I mentioned that yesterday.

Hon Chris Penk: Thank you, sir, point of order. Large swathes of the Auckland region are in fact rural in nature, for example, the former Rodney District and the former Franklin District.

SPEAKER: Right, well, thank you very much. You must flick that through to Wikipedia so I can find out myself later on.

Question No. 6—Regulation

6. to the Minister for Regulation: What recent announcements has he made?

With great pleasure I’d like to inform the House that yesterday I announced the next steps in the Government’s plan to improve the quality of regulation by opening consultation on the proposed regulatory standards bill. To lift productivity and wages, the Government’s agreement is to include a commitment to pass the regulatory standards bill. This bill has four components: a set of principles for responsible regulation, a mechanism to ensure regulations are consistent with the principles, justified departure from the principles, and a recourse to enable New Zealanders to seek an independent assessment when a regulation does not meet the principles and statutory powers for the ministry. Consultation on the proposed regulatory standards bill is open until Monday, 13 January 2025.

Todd Stephenson: What are the principles of responsible regulation?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The principles fall into three categories. The first is the principle relating to the design and content of legislation, such as the importance of the rule of law and that fair compensation should be paid for the taking or impairment of private property. Second is the principle of good lawmaking, such as ensuring regulation should produce benefits that exceed the cost of imposing that regulation. The third is the principle relating to regulatory stewardship, such as eliminating regulatory burden and compliance costs and ensuring that regulatory systems are fit for purpose.

Todd Stephenson: How will the regulatory standards bill improve the quality of new regulations?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The regulatory standards bill is fundamentally an exercise in transparency. There’s nothing in the bill that requires the regulator to follow the principles of regulation. However, it does require regulators to consider the principles and publicly justify why they shouldn’t apply to any particular rule that they’re imposing upon New Zealanders. If we raise the political cost of making bad laws by allowing New Zealanders to hold politicians and regulators accountable, the outcome will be better lawmaking, higher productivity, and better wages for all New Zealanders.

Question No. 7—Justice

7. to the Minister of Justice: What actions is the Government taking to reduce harm caused by gangs and to make communities safer?

At midnight tonight the Gangs Act 2024 will come into force. This legislation will reduce the ability of gangs to cause fear, intimidation, and disruption to New Zealanders by giving police additional tools to deal with the mayhem on our streets, and to keep our communities safe.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Why is reducing the harm caused by gangs a priority for this Government?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, indeed, because gang members make up less than one quarter of 1 percent of the adult population, yet they’re linked to 18 percent of all serious violent crime, 19 percent of homicides, 23 percent of all firearm offences, and 25 percent of all kidnapping and abductions. These are abhorrent statistics, and this Government is focused on restoring real consequences for crime. We cannot succeed in our mission to reduce the numbers of victims of serious violent crime without dealing more effectively with gangs.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What additional tools will be available to police at midnight tonight?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, at midnight tonight the display of gang patches in public places is prohibited, and in the case of repeat offences, possession is prohibited. Police will issue dispersal notices to break up gang gatherings that disrupt the public, and issue non-consorting orders to prevent specific gang members from associating. New Zealanders deserve to be able to go about their lives without fear of being intimidated and preyed upon by organised crime, and the police now have the additional tools they need to do the job.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What other legislation comes into force at midnight tonight?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, alongside the Gangs Act 2024, the Sentencing Amendment Act 2024 will come into force. This makes gang membership on its own an aggravating factor in sentencing. Gangs have for some time been able to behave as if they were above the law with minimal consequences whilst peddling misery in our communities. As of tomorrow, the time is over.

Question No. 8—Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions

8. to the Lead Coordination Minister for the Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions: Does she accept the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care’s findings, including that one of the contributing factors to neglect and abuse in care was the lack of legislation specific to care settings that gave effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi; if not, why not?

SPEAKER: The Hon Erica Stanford. Can I ask the Ministers to make sure the mikes are facing—yeah.

Last month, the Government said that we broadly accept the findings of the royal commission’s final report, with further work required to respond to those findings that are legal in nature. Findings regarding breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi or failure to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi are included in findings that require further work. The Government expects to receive further advice on these in 2025.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she think that the repeal of section 7AA, which explicitly removes Te Tiriti provisions and the requirement to reduce disparities for tamariki Māori, is consistent with the royal commission’s findings, and, if so, why?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: My role as the lead coordination Minister for the Government response is to lead the coordination of Ministers and our coordination of our response to the royal commission’s recommendations. I am not responsible for irrelevant portfolios of other Ministers or decisions irrelevant Ministers make.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she think that it is acceptable that the young serious offenders (YSO) bill has no references to Māori or Te Tiriti when officials advise that 80 to 85 percent of those eligible for the YSO declaration are likely to be Māori, and is this consistent with the findings and recommendations of the royal commission?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I refer the member to my previous answer.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Mr Speaker, we accept that there are lead Ministers to particular pieces of work. But when the supplementary question to the Minister specifically refers to whether that piece of work is consistent in the report of which this Minister is the coordination Minister, and therefore responsible to the House to answer, I’m not sure that’s an appropriate response.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Speaking to the point of order. The member who asked the question asked about the royal commission’s findings. I am the Minister responsible for the recommendations of the royal commission’s report, not their findings.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Speaking to the point of order. On that specific question, I said, “Is this consistent with the findings and recommendations of the royal commission?”

SPEAKER: Look, I think you’re always going to get some difficulty when there are multiple Ministers involved in a particular issue, but the reality is we have a lead coordinating Minister. So some other commentary might be helpful from the Minister.

Hon Simeon Brown: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, I just ruled on the point of order.

Hon Simeon Brown: Yeah, it’s a point of order.

SPEAKER: Well, what’s the new point of order?

Hon Simeon Brown: Well, the point of order here is that the Minister is getting asked about a range of things where she is not actually the Minister responsible for those particular items. She is the lead coordinator of the report—and when the questions start going into a range of different individual issues, the only comment she’s going to be able to answer to that is, “I’m not actually responsible for those particular issues.” I’m trying to seek your guidance around how much the Minister can actually provide advice to the House when she’s actually the lead coordinator and not going to be responsible for each of those individual questions.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s an interesting sort of proposition, but unfortunately I have an idea in my head that “coordinator” means the person who organises. Is there another point of order or another question?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Just speaking to that—

SPEAKER: We’ll have another response to the question.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The primary question talked about findings, and in relation to findings and keeping with the primary question, as I’ve said, we broadly accept the findings, but I am the coordinating Minister that has—[Interruption]—responsibility for the recommendations of the report, and that was not in the primary question.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. The point remains that, first of all, yes, the primary question did reference findings—that’s been approved by the Clerk’s office and yourself. The supplementary in question not only referenced findings but also recommendations which this Minister is definitely responsible for.

SPEAKER: That’s right, and the Minister just said she was. I don’t think a Minister can be responsible for the findings of a report. It’s the recommendations of a report that the Government’s accepted that makes the ministerial responsibility clearer. Is there another question?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. Therefore my question was—

SPEAKER: No, hang on. I’ve just ruled on it. So—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Which was?

SPEAKER: I appreciate that you may not be happy with that, but do you have another supplementary?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: I do. Is she concerned, as the lead coordination Minister, that the Minister of Education is making legislative changes to downgrade Te Tiriti when the royal commission found that past education Ministers failed to respond to the identity, language, and culture of Māori, and that led to harm?

SPEAKER: Well, you can answer in so much as there is responsibility. The question is very broad.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, my responsibility as a lead coordinating Minister is that I don’t have responsibility for individual decisions of those Ministers.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she accept that the disregard of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its neglect in the design, development, and implementation of the care system went to the heart of the abuse and neglect experienced by many Māori survivors and their whānau, and that she is failing as a Minister of the Crown to change the systems that led to harm in care?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I said in my primary answer, we do broadly accept the findings of the royal commission’s final report.

Question No. 9—Police

9. to the Minister of Police: What new tools will Police have from tomorrow to crack down on gangs?

At midnight tonight, it will be illegal to wear or display gang patches and insignia in public in New Zealand. Police will also be able to issue gang members with non-consorting orders and issue dispersal notices. The coalition Government promised a gang crackdown; tomorrow, that will be in full force.

Dr Carlos Cheung: How will non-consorting orders help police fight organised crime?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Non-consorting orders are able to be issued by the court against known gang offenders, preventing them from communicating and consorting with each other to commit violent and organised crime. These have proved very effective in other jurisdictions at preventing the flow of illegal activity and will enable police to dismantle gangs from the inside.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What benefit will dispersal notices have for the public?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Police will be able to issue a dispersal notice to any known gang offenders congregating in a public place. This will mean that police can disperse gang gatherings and avert disruption to the public before it happens, by telling members to go home and not come back for seven days.

Dr Carlos Cheung: Are police ready to enforce the new laws?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, they are.

Tamatha Paul: Supplementary—supplementary, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Supplementary question—

Tamatha Paul: Tamatha Paul.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I know—bad day today. Tamatha Paul—sorry.

Tamatha Paul: All good, no worries. Was the Minister listening at the abuse in State care apology last week when the connection between abuse in State care and the formation of gangs was made?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, I was, and I met with and spoke with three gang members that were at the abuse in State care apology. All three of them indicated to me that they wanted to leave the gang, and all three of them indicated that, actually, the gang lifestyle had not been a positive impact in their lives.

Tamatha Paul: Does he recognise, then, that this approach to cracking down on gangs and locking them up in prison is not going to achieve the reduction in gang membership that he says he wants?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I’d just make an observation that in the last 12 months, the police have been cracking down on gangs, and it’s had a massive positive impact in terms of making the communities that they operate in—because these are organised criminal organisations that are perpetrating violence, that are involved with the dealing of methamphetamine; they’re a wrecking ball in terms of misery inside communities. Actually, communities are feeling much safer because the police are cracking down on them.

Question No. 10—Justice

10. to the Minister of Justice: Is he confident that the Human Rights Commission is politically independent; if so, why?

Yes. As the member will know, section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1993 requires the Human Rights Commission to act independently in performing its statutory functions and duties.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Does the Minister consider that it is consistent with the duty to ensure the independence of the commission under the 1993 United Nations Paris principles, that the appointee is the Chief Human Rights Commissioner, Dr Stephen Rainbow, who was recommended to him for appointment by the ACT Party?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, perfectly. Everybody in this country’s free to nominate somebody and then Cabinet makes the decision about that.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Does the Minister consider that he acted consistent with the duty to maintain the independence of the commission, as required by the Paris principles, when Dr Stephen Rainbow was recommended for appointment by the Minister, despite the fact that an expert interview panel found that he did not have the skills and qualifications to be a viable appointment and did not consider him appointable?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes. We’ve been over this before. The independent panel are very senior legal people who I respect greatly. They made some recommendations, and in one case we took up that recommendation with Gail Pacheco. In terms of the chief commissioner, ultimately Cabinet made the decision that they were looking for a slightly different set of skills, and in particular a focus on communicating effectively in terms of human rights. So we went with Dr Rainbow. And I’m proud to say I’ve got every confidence that he’ll do a better job than appointments from the previous Government.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: What actions did the Minister take after Dr Stephen Rainbow was informed that he wasn’t a preferred candidate for the Chief Human Rights Commissioner role that led to Dr Rainbow re-entering the selection process?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I certainly didn’t inform Mr Rainbow about that. And if he was informed by anybody, they were obviously premature, because no decision had been made until the decision to appoint Dr Stephen Rainbow.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question asked what actions did the Minister take subsequent to Dr Rainbow being informed he wasn’t a successful candidate. The Minister didn’t address that at all. He talked about who informed Dr Rainbow of that fact. It’s quite an important point. I’d ask that the Minister address the question of whether or not he took any actions to restart that process.

SPEAKER: Well, it would be reasonable to assume that if he’s telling the House who informed Dr Rainbow, that it wasn’t him.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Minister aware of Dr Rainbow’s long history of hard left-wing activism, stretching back to the 1970s, including membership and candidacy for the Labour and Green parties; and can he assure the House that Dr Rainbow will be able to represent the views of all New Zealanders in his role as Human Rights Commissioner, and not give in to the kind of communist tendencies that some of those parties have occasionally exhibited? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Let’s just be very clear: that question’s not getting answered.

Hon Willie Jackson: Kick him out!

SPEAKER: I’ll tell you what, it’s not far off. It’s unbelievable. When questions are asked, you’re silent.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Previous Speakers have consistently ruled that accusations of communism are a breach of Parliament’s—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Right. The next person who speaks when there’s either a question being asked or a point of order taken will be leaving for the week.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: So I make no commentary on the fact that it was done through an attempt to ask a question, but the point remains that previous Speakers, when members have accused either parties or members of this House of communism, they have been made to withdraw and apologise. Now, I accept that the Minister was asked to stop part way through, but nevertheless it was clear where the accusation was being made. On this occasion, I would ask that you would consider that as an appropriate response.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, point of order. The honourable member’s right, with one exception: it is when the person who is the recipient of the allegation makes the complaint, not someone else. He or she’s got to find it an offence, as some in the past have not. So that’s the distinction here.

SPEAKER: I think the whole thing was, to say the least, messy. We will move on to question No. 11.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s a different point of order to the one that’s just been raised with you. Mr Speaker, earlier on in the media today, I noticed that David Seymour was giving direction to you through the media to be more strict in your application of the Standing Orders. The question that David Seymour asked was not only out of order but was, in fact, disorderly. So I wonder whether you might like to reflect on David Seymour’s request that you be more strict in punishing those who violate the Standing Orders.

Hon David Seymour: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Just give me a minute. I always reflect on advice that comes from members. And I find it not exactly easy to wade through the conflictions inside that advice. This better be useful as an addition to the current point of order.

Hon David Seymour: Well, Mr Speaker, I merely make the point that I would not and have not attempted to give direction to you.

SPEAKER: OK, it must have just felt like that!

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Did the Minister take any action to ensure that Stephen Rainbow re-entered the selection process after he’d been told he wasn’t the successful candidate?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the action that I took was to continue the process and to develop a recommendation to Cabinet to appoint a person for the Chief Human Rights Commissioner. The member may go deeper and deeper into the weeds on this; the reality is that we’ve made three excellent appointments to the Human Rights Commission. The Race Relations Commissioner had been empty for more than a year after the resignation of Meng Foon—remember Meng Foon? We’re very confident that those three appointments are going to give some real strength to the commission and they will carry on in a politically independent way to safeguard and stand up for human rights in New Zealand.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Is the Minister confident that the commission will retain its A accreditation by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions under the Paris principles, given that Dr Rainbow was nominated by a governing political party, he was put on a shortlist by the Minister against advice, and his appointment was made despite an independent panel saying he was not a viable appointment?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, I am quite confident. We went to stand up and defend our human rights in Geneva in April this year. We did face some criticism on our human rights record from Russia, but I’m confident that we’ll be able to continue to have a very high regard in the international sector.

Question No. 11—Trade

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question—

You can wait until the House gives you the respect of silence.

11. to the Minister for Trade: What actions has the Government taken to grow New Zealand’s economy and increase farm-gate returns for farmers and growers?

The Government is relentlessly focused on reducing trade barriers, unlocking new markets, and supporting Kiwi businesses to grow. A big part of this is reducing non-tariff and technical barriers (NTBs) to trade, which we estimate affect $9.8 billion worth of New Zealand exports each year, with the primary sector facing the greatest impact. This is why we have started a programme to resolve trade barriers and increase farm-gate returns for farmers and growers. This year, the Government has successfully resolved 16 barriers to trade, affecting $733 million worth of exports. This directly supports our ambitious target of doubling exports by value in 10 years; and with one in four jobs tied to trade, it returns more money to the back pocket for thousands of New Zealanders.

Mike Butterick: What actions has the Government taken to support primary exports and reduce other barriers?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, we’re returning more value to the primary producers and other exporters. Since June, we’ve reduced regulatory burdens on wine and spirits exports to the EU; resolved barriers on medical device exports to Mexico; restored onion exports to Indonesia, New Zealand onions’ largest market; restored access for up to $250 million worth of log exports to India; extended tariff-free access for New Zealand digital exporters to all World Trade Organization members; resolved compliance measures to secure blueberry access to Korea; restored $88 million worth of frozen deer velvet exports to China; and achieved a 12-month reprieve for costly EU deforestation regulations, saving farmers and exporters up to $200 million. Reducing these barriers is part of the Government’s plan to grow the economy, to lift incomes for all Kiwis, and to create jobs.

Mike Butterick: What additional actions are the Government taking to address trade barriers?

Hon TODD McCLAY: New Zealand exported $98.2 billion worth of goods and services this year to June 2024. Over the next 12 months, we will continue to focus on targeting over $900 million worth of NTBs, including seeking a permanent exemption to EU deforestation regulations, removing a ban on structural timber exports to Australia, restrictions on cosmetic exports to China, and we’ll continue to take action against Canada dairy restrictions. We’re focused on removing barriers to trade and making it easier for farmers and growers to supply high-quality, safe food to the world.

Mike Butterick: What action is the Government taking to restore Canadian dairy access?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, Canada continues to fail to meet its obligations to New Zealand under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership in respect of dairy exports to Canada. Last year, under the previous Government, New Zealand started a formal dispute procedure under this agreement with Canada, and we won a panel ruling in our favour. Unfortunately, Canada continues to not comply with their obligations, and, as a result, New Zealand dairy farmers are missing out on market access that was negotiated and granted under that trade agreement. This is a matter of principle. New Zealand takes its obligations seriously and we expect others to also do so, and we will stand up for New Zealand farmers and exporters. We’ve therefore taken further action which forces Canada to meet with us formally to make changes to allow exports or to pay New Zealand compensation for the trade harm they are causing. The ball is now squarely in Canada’s court. The New Zealand Government reserves the right to take any action we deem appropriate, including imposing tariff sanctions on Canadian exports to New Zealand. I say the time is running out for Canada to honour their obligations to New Zealand farmers.

Question No. 12—Prime Minister

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

Yes, and especially our action to restore law and order. A year ago, Kiwis demanded fresh leadership and a new approach to a major rise in violent and retail crime that occurred in recent years. Since then, we’ve made big changes and we’re already seeing results. Foot patrols have increased 30 percent, ram raids are down 60 percent, serious assaults have dropped 3 percent, and aggravated robberies are down 11 percent. There are more changes coming: tough new gang laws take effect tonight and stronger sentencing is on the way. There’s always more to do, but the signs suggest that restoring law and order means that we’re getting New Zealand back on track.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Can he define what tino rangatiratanga means, given his Government has introduced a bill to redefine tino rangatiratanga?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said, the bill is being introduced at first reading, it won’t be supported at second reading, and therefore it won’t become law.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. My question was asking for the Prime Minister to define what tino rangatiratanga means, not to discuss the second reading of the bill.

SPEAKER: Yes, but you asked two legs in that question. The second part was in relation to the legislation being introduced, and the Prime Minister gave an answer to that.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. There was not two legs to that question. There was only one leg to the question, which was, “Can he define what tino rangatiratanga means, given his Government has introduced the bill to redefine tino rangatiratanga?”—there was not two legs in that question.

SPEAKER: Yeah, there is.

Rawiri Waititi: So the question was clear and he didn’t address it, nor did he answer it.

SPEAKER: The first leg was the question, “Could he define”; the second was “given”. So he’s responded to the second leg of the question. Sorry, I’m not being difficult; I’m just telling you what the rules are. I know that’s challenging for some.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Can he define what tino rangatiratanga means?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Unqualified exercise over land and taonga.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: The Prime Minister was respectfully welcomed at marae across all the country, so why couldn’t he offer Māori the same respect when welcoming them to Parliament yesterday?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said yesterday, many of the organisers were affiliated with that member’s party, Te Pāti Māori. You can hold me to account on this Parliament many days in any given week. My message to the hīkoi was very straightforward, which is the bill is being supported at first reading but not beyond that and won’t become law. And the last thing, as I say, is I engage with Māori up and down the country on a range of issues.

Rawiri Waititi: Prime Minister for the whole country, or not?

SPEAKER: Stick to my rules.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: For clarity, is the Prime Minister saying that any members of Te Pāti Māori or members of the public who affiliate to Te Pāti Māori will never be met with by the Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, I’m not saying that. We sent a delegation out from the National Party that represented our position, received the hīkoi here at Parliament—it was good.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister been told that tino rangatiratanga means the chief’s word is gospel; not every Tom, Dick, Rawiri, or Hone?

SPEAKER: I think the point is made. Is there another supplementary?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How will he reconcile the damage he has done to the Crown’s relationship with Māori after not showing up to the largest hīkoi in the history of New Zealand?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I’d say is that the way that we build a stronger relationship with Māori and the Crown is by focusing on things that matter most to Māori. And what matters most to them is how they lift their incomes, how they secure better housing, how they get timely, quality access to healthcare, how they improve educational outcomes. Those are the things that matter to Māori and to non-Māori, and that’s what this Government is doing. And, you know, frankly, I haven’t heard anything from that member talking about why only 12 percent of Māori students are at the standard they need to be at going into high school. That kind of matters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister not astonished that umbrage is being taken to his not being out there yesterday when he was, like others, never invited to be part of it, unlike in any other Māori setting?

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute. We’ve got a point of order going on so we’ll all behave ourselves.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Thank you. Looking at Speakers’ rulings 197/5 and 197/6, which I think have been consistently broken by the Deputy Prime Minister, I just wanted to test and seek your guidance about the fact we’ve got a Deputy Prime Minister who keeps referring to the standards of this place, yet continues to ignore the very same rules that he claims to abide by—specifically, in this case, those two Speakers’ rulings.

SPEAKER: Look, I’m not sure that I’ve heard the actual Speakers’ rulings that were being quoted.

Ricardo Menéndez March: 197/5—

SPEAKER: 187/5.

Ricardo Menéndez March: 197/5 and 197/6. I can read them out loud.

SPEAKER: Sorry, what is your number? What page is it?

Ricardo Menéndez March: Page 197. So—

SPEAKER: What, sorry?

Ricardo Menéndez March: 197/5, which reads: “The whole idea of supplementary questions is not to make a range of political statements about an issue but to dig into an issue, to test a Minister’s answer.”

SPEAKER: Oh, OK. So for those who are perhaps listening or viewing who are uncertain what that means, there’s a Speaker’s ruling that says supplementary questions should not be used for making political statements. The fact is, when there was a slightly political statement made, I didn’t allow the question. I can’t know what the question is until it’s made. The second point is that if we were to get strict on that, then there would be a significant number of questions that don’t get asked. So I thank the member for calling that to the attention of the House, it’s something everyone should bear in mind, but there’s nothing further to do here.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why is he ignoring the 270,000-strong petition to kill the Treaty principles bill when more people signed it than voted for the ACT Party?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because we have a coalition agreement—we’re supporting the bill to first reading. We honour our commitments and our agreements to each other in this coalition Government, and we’re saying we’re not supporting it at second reading. It won’t become law unless the Opposition parties vote for it.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Right, sorry, lost my way there—just one or two other things going on.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he agree with New Zealand First that there are no Treaty principles, only articles, and, if so, will he be replacing the principles he’s removing from 28 pieces of legislation with the articles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We want to have maximum clarity so we can get things done in this country and that means that when we have a Treaty principles reference, it’s specific to the legislation that it’s involved with.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he still believe he has lived up to his own statement that “The Treaty is our past, present, and future. It has shaped the country we have become, and the obligations it imposes on both sides will always be with us”, given his Government has introduced the Treaty principles bill, which serves to redefine the Treaty and to remove the Treaty from 28 pieces of legislation; is he misleading the country and being fallacious?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first leg of the question: yes.