Oral Questions

1. to the Minister for Social Investment: What recent reports has she seen on progress in social investment?

Last week, I announced an important step in the Government’s implementation of social investment. That is the new Social Investment Board, chaired by former Treasury Secretary Dr Graham Scott, and made up of highly skilled people with a diverse range of expertise and known to many members of this House. They are Laura Black, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, Helen Leahy, Katie Murray, Julie Nelson, Debbie Sorenson, Mike Williams, and David Woods. I met with the board earlier today, and I know it will make a valuable contribution to bringing about better outcomes for New Zealanders.

Carl Bates: What is social investment?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Social investment is about funding, delivering, and measuring the impact of social services in a way that ensures better results for the most vulnerable New Zealanders. Despite decades of good intentions, multiple strategies, and thousands of contracts, Government efforts have not had the impact required. Social investment is more than simply delivering better value for money; it is about improving people’s lives.

Carl Bates: How will social investment be implemented?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Social investment will only come to life by the Government working closely together with others. That means drawing together grassroots providers, iwi, experts, and others, and empowering providers to do what works. I’m delighted that Andrew Coster has this week taken up his role as chief executive of the Social Investment Agency. He has the skills and experience to foster those partnerships. Work has already begun to create a social investment fund, create a new way to commission social services, and, most importantly, to identify investments that will make a difference to the lives of the most vulnerable New Zealanders.

Carl Bates: What other progress is being made in implementing social investment?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Tomorrow, I will attend a social investment hui in Lower Hutt, bringing together more than 100 people who work, lead, and support the delivery of social services in New Zealand. There will be grassroots providers at the hui with deep experience and knowledge. There will be iwi representatives, experts, philanthropists, Public Service leaders, and others with an interest in getting better results for our most vulnerable. The hui will discuss how we collectively push ahead with social investment. I’m looking forward to those discussions, and, more importantly, I’m looking forward to getting on with delivering solutions for New Zealanders.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What analysis has she reviewed on the social investment implications of repealing section 7AA, disestablishing Te Aka Whai Ora, cutting front-line Oranga Tamariki social workers, and the social division caused by rewriting the Treaty of Waitangi?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Part of that question illustrates part of the problem, which is that the idea of creating a new bureaucracy in the form of the Māori health commission—a view that that would somehow help a Māori child in Kaitāia. What I would put to you is that we have to get away from the idea that creating new structures for Government is the way of getting better results for people. In fact, it’s my view that we should devolve more power and responsibility to those closest to those we wish to help. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I just made the point at the start of question time that a general barrage like that is not acceptable. Rare and reasonable interjection is the accepted norm in the House, but it does have to be more rare and more reasonable.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, yes.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he stand by his statement that the Treaty principles bill is a “disservice” to the Treaty; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I stand by all my statements.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What did he mean when he said the bill is “divisive”; and how does it reflect upon the Prime Minister that he is willing to introduce legislation he describes in those terms to secure a coalition?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, the Government in its coalition agreement has agreed to support this bill to the select committee process, and we are doing so. The National Party has indicated it will not support this bill becoming law.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How is the Treaty principles bill “very simplistic”, as he described it this morning, and does he acknowledge the complex and detrimental effects it is having on Crown-Māori relations?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, we believe in equal citizenship and equal opportunity for all New Zealanders, but we do not believe that this bill is the way to achieve that.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree with 42 King’s Counsel that the Treaty principles bill and the intended referendum on the implementation of the bill is “wholly inappropriate” as a way of addressing such an “important and complex constitutional issue”; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, and as has been traversed in this House many times, it is not the intention of the National Party to support this bill becoming law.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is he concerned that the bill is disturbing even the business community, with a director telling the Mood of the Boardroom survey last month that “[Mr Seymour’s] divisive approach needs to end; this is not the Kiwi way”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As we have set out, it is a bill that is required through a coalition agreement to be supported to a select committee. What I have said before is that I do not think it makes sense or will be enduring for Parliament to simply set down its interpretation of the Treaty and then seek a majority of the public to confirm it in a referendum. That is a crude way to handle a very delicate subject.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What does it say about his leadership when his soon-to-be Deputy Prime Minister accused him of being “clearly nervous” about the bill and the National Party of being “afraid of taking on hard issues”, with him doing nothing to dissuade the public of that notion?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, of course, David Seymour is responsible for his own statements. In this case, they are wholly incorrect.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. The Prime Minister is responsible for comments made by Ministers, even those Ministers speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister in this capacity.

SPEAKER: That might be true, and if that is the case, then the person acting for the Prime Minister in this case saying that Ministers are responsible for their own statements is an answer to the question.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. With respect, sir, if the Prime Minister gave that answer, then, as you have in the past, you have agreed that they are responsible for comments made by their Ministers. A Minister speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister—and for the purposes of the Hansard it’s considered to be the Prime Minister’s words—surely shouldn’t be able to provide a different answer to that expected of the Prime Minister.

SPEAKER: No, I’m not requiring that. I just made the point that the Minister acting for the Prime Minister specified the Minister who had made the statements was the leader of another party and said he is responsible for his own statements. I don’t think that’s anything other than an answer.

Hon David Seymour: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, what is it—supplementary?

Hon David Seymour: No, I was going to offer some assistance to the—

SPEAKER: No, no. I think we’re right here.

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?]

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement both yesterday and earlier today that the Treaty principles bill is “divisive”, and, if so, does he take personal responsibility for the division currently amplifying across this country?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, I stand by my statements in the context in which they are given.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister take personal responsibility for the division that the Treaty principles bill is causing across this country?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: What I take responsibility for is the coalition agreement which I am honouring by supporting the first reading of the Treaty principles bill. As I have made clear in this House on several occasions, we in the National Party will not support it becoming law.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister have the constitutional power to block National Party MPs from voting with their conscience on the Treaty principles bill?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The member is confecting things that haven’t occurred.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister there saying that members of the National Party are free to vote with their conscience this afternoon on the Treaty principles bill? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: That is to be the last outburst from the gallery.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The vote this afternoon will be a party vote.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Are we to take from that that the Prime Minister is blocking his MPs from exercising their conscience on one of the most significant constitutional votes that has come before this House in living memory?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, no.

Question No. 4—Transport

4. to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made on the Kāpiti Expressway speed limit?

Good news for Kāpiti: on Monday, I announced that the speed limit on the Mackays to Peka Peka and Peka Peka to Ōtaki sections of the Kāpiti Expressway would increase to 110 kilometres per hour from yesterday. [Interruption] This road of national significance, built by the previous National Government, was designed to a safety standard suitable for 110 kilometres per hour. Enabling these types of expressway to have speed limits of 110 kilometres per hour is part of our Government’s plan to get New Zealand moving again.

SPEAKER: And that needs to be a much more muted response to a question that pretty much everyone in the House knows the answer to.

Tim Costley: What support has he seen for having a 110-kilometre-per-hour speed limit on the Kāpiti Expressway road of national significance?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, a lot of support. In April, I announced that the New Zealand Transport Agency was consulting on the new 110-kilometre-per-hour speed limit on the Kāpiti Expressway road of national significance. The results are in: 93 percent of the 3,313 submissions received supported the new 110-kilometre-per-hour speed limit, and this has now been delivered for those travelling through Kāpiti.

Tim Costley: What reports has the Minister seen on the safety benefits of the Kāpiti Expressway road of national significance?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Incredible safety benefits. The Kāpiti Expressway, started by the previous National Government, was designed and constructed to a high safety standard. Since this expressway opened, no one has died in a crash, and there has been a 70 percent reduction in road deaths in the Kāpiti Coast District. Our Government is committed to delivering safe, and new roads of national significance across the country to enable people and freight to get where they need to go quickly and safely.

Tim Costley: What other roads of national significance are currently proposed to have a 110-kilometre-per-hour speed limit?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Good news: there are currently proposed speed limit increases to 110 kilometres per hour between Ōrewa and Warkworth, and on the Christchurch Southern Motorway road of national significance to reduce travel times for those travelling on these routes. The roads of national significance are some of New Zealand’s best highways that are unlocking economic growth and improving safety.

Question No. 5—Māori Development

5. to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he stand by his statement, “Te Tiriti o Waitangi is foundational to our country”; if not, why not?

Āna—yes. Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi—is foundational for our country, past, present, and future. Whilst there are other important documents, like the Magna Carta 1215, the National Party recognises that the Treaty is fundamental in our constitution by stating recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi as the foundational document of New Zealand as one of our 10 party values.

Hon Willie Jackson: If Te Tiriti is foundational to our country, why is his Government allowing the Treaty principles bill to proceed when all the evidence shows that the bill will discriminate against Māori?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: First, I want to acknowledge that there’s significant opposition to this bill. Second, National supports the process to take this bill through first reading to select committee. This was the output from negotiating coalition Governments in an MMP environment. However, as you know, National’s focus is to rebuild the economy, reset law and order, and deliver better public services. This bill does not strengthen that focus. As a result, we will not support this bill beyond select committee and will vote it down.

Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, can I—

SPEAKER: Just wait till the House gathers itself.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Has the Minister read the Cabinet Manual, which provides a framework for policy formation and decision making and recognises the Treaty as a major source of the constitution which accords special recognition to Māori rights and interests, and, if not, when does he plan to read it?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I have read that manual.

Hon Willie Jackson: Why did he choose to appoint former ACT Party leader Richard Prebble to the Waitangi Tribunal ahead of the brilliant Dr Hana O’Regan and our foremost broadcaster Derek Fox—why was that appointment made given that Mr Prebble has actively advocated against the tribunal and also said that he thinks there should be a Treaty principles debate, which he is on record as saying?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: A number of members from across our communities are appointed to different boards, such as the former Labour Party president Mike Williams being appointed to the Social Investment Board. As a former Minister of various Labour Governments and someone who is well acquainted with the machinations of this House, Richard Prebble is an appropriate person to be appointed to the tribunal.

Hon Willie Jackson: How can the Minister for Māori Development stand there and look our people in the eye and tell them that he is an advocate for Māori rights when he has done nothing to stop the Treaty principles bill proceeding?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The member presumes what happens in caucus and Cabinet and various other places where I advocate for various matters, and I think that is very presumptuous.

Hon Willie Jackson: Can I say to the Minister, what will it take before—

SPEAKER: Wait on—wait on. Your own side’s making a lot of noise. So let’s just all get quiet for questions, which are asked in silence. When you’re ready, Mr Jackson.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What will it take before this Minister actually does something, or has he given up because—and I will quote him—he’s “way down … the food chain” and has no influence at all?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As we’re aware, National will not vote for this bill beyond select committee. Our long-held position is that a referendum on the Treaty would be divisive. It is unrealistic for that member, who was part of a former Government that saw an increase of unemployment across Māori by over 30 percent, to come and give me a lecture on tikanga or anything else.

Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Yes, and it will be heard in silence.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The question was pretty clear and direct there; I don’t think he got anywhere near it. It was asking him when he would do anything or had he given up because he’s well-known, and he’s given the quote—

SPEAKER: No, no, hang on—OK, you’ve made your point. I think the Minister would probably want to say something in addition to what he has already said.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As people are aware, in my caucus in this House, my quest is to help achieve equal citizenship and equality of opportunity that your tupuna Tā Apirana Ngata wrote about a century ago and that many of our kaumātua went to battlefields across the world to fight for. The equality of opportunity that I fight for was left well short by people like the other member who’s barracking right now.

Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker—Mr Speaker, point of order.

SPEAKER: No, no, I haven’t called you. I haven’t called the member.

Hon Willie Jackson: Oh, sorry, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: That is the last outburst that the House is to have today. Otherwise, if we do that again, we’ll be hearing the balance of question time—questions and answers—in silence.

Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker, point of order. I still don’t believe the Minister has got anywhere near answering the question, because I’m asking a specific question—what will he actually do?—and he goes waffling off about the army and tūpuna and ancestors. What will this Minister actually do for his people—

SPEAKER: That’s enough.

Hon Willie Jackson: —or has he given up because he has no influence in terms of Cabinet?

SPEAKER: That’s enough—that is enough. The member clearly wasn’t listening to the answer; I was, and he started by saying what his entire focus as a Minister is. I think that is more than enough to answer the question.

Question No. 6—Transport

6. to the Associate Minister of Transport: What recent announcement has the Government made regarding funding support to strengthen front-line volunteer service organisations?

More good news. Last month, the very hard-working Minister of Transport and I announced a $23.1 million funding package over four years to boost critical front-line volunteer services. Heading outside for a day of fun is part of the Kiwi life, I’m sure you’ll agree, Mr Speaker, particularly as we head into the busy summer season. However, with that comes risk. That is why our Government is making this investment so we can better equip and prepare organisations to continue saving lives, communities, and livelihoods when faced with emergency situations.

Katie Nimon: What organisations are set to benefit from this announcement?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Oh, good question. More good news. Surf Lifesaving New Zealand will receive $14.6 million over four years. Coastguard New Zealand will receive $3.1 million. These two front-line agencies provide critical water safety services for Kiwis, and their services are delivered almost entirely by volunteers. Let’s have a big shout-out for our hard-working volunteers in New Zealand.

Katie Nimon: What will these funds be used for?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Oh, another good question. Surf Lifesaving will use this funding to repair and replace Surf Lifesaving assets that were damaged in the 2023 North Island weather events, including a replacement for the Surf Lifesaving Club at Bethells Beach and repairs to the Mangawhai Heads club that was damaged following a landslide.

Katie Nimon: What other actions has the Government taken to support front-line volunteer service organisations?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, what we have here is a Government that’s focused on reducing wasteful spending so we can reinvest that into critical front-line services. So that’s why you see in this funding package an addition to early investment that the Government announced for Coastguard and Surf Lifesaving New Zealand. Through Budget 2024, Coastguard and Surf Lifesaving received a funding boost of $63.644 million over four years to keep Kiwis safe in, on, and around the water.

Question No. 7—Small Business and Manufacturing

7. to the Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing: What recent steps has the Government taken to improve payment times for small businesses?

My colleague the Hon Melissa Lee and I recently announced that the Government is committed to supporting faster payments for small businesses, especially given that the Government spends over $50 billion annually with its suppliers. From 1 January 2025, the Government’s 135 agencies will be required to pay small businesses much more promptly, providing these businesses with the timely cash flow they need to grow and succeed.

Cameron Brewer: What is the time line for implementing faster payment requirements for Government agencies?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: From 1 January next year, the 135 agencies must pay 90 percent of trade invoices within 10 business days, increasing to 95 percent in 2026. Secondly, as part of the Government’s focus on encouraging greater digitisation of the economy, from 2026, Government agencies processing over 2,000 domestic invoices annually must use e-invoicing, ensuring payment within five working days.

Cameron Brewer: What steps will the Government take to ensure compliance with these payment rules?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: To ensure compliance, we will require Government agencies to report their payment results quarterly. These results will be published on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment website. This will allow anyone to check the compliance of relevant Government departments. These agencies will also have to report why they have failed to meet the payment requirements and front up to their respective Minister.

Cameron Brewer: How will these new rules impact the day-to-day operations of small businesses?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: These rules are set to make a substantial difference. We know that for small businesses, cash flow is critical, and waiting extended periods for payment can hinder growth or even threaten survival. By mandating shorter payment times, we’re providing business owners with the resources they need to invest in their operations, whether it’s hiring more staff, upgrading equipment, or expanding services. This is all part of the Government’s support for small businesses.

Question No. 8—Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti

8. to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: Does he stand by his answer to oral question No. 11 on 7 November 2024 that “There are a number of matters that have strengthened the Māori-Crown relationship”; if so, why?

I stand by this answer, and, as mentioned, people like Minister Goldsmith are prioritising outstanding Treaty settlements in the vein of previous Ministers for Treaty of Waitangi negotiations. Minister Willis has continued to support Māori back pockets through tax cuts, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars staying with whānau. Of course, we are expediting purely settlement delivery matters, like the payment of $25 million to Kurahaupō iwi last week for the failure to deliver the airport to them. Constructive relationships do require work. There is a lot more mahi to do no matter who is the Kāwanatanga.

Hon Peeni Henare: What does he say to Ngati Toa leader Helmut Modlik, who described his answers last week as “so dishonest, duplicitous, and dishonourable”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Thank you, Matua Helmut. I know you are pono. I know you are genuine, and I know you carry the international responsibilities of our people of Ngāti Toa Rangatira, and thank you for your tautoko of Te Kahu o Te Raukura here today and every day.

Hon Peeni Henare: Is the Treaty principles bill one of the matters the Minister has referred to that has strengthened the Māori-Crown relationship?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As we’re aware and as I’ve mentioned today, the bill is the result of a coalition arrangement between the National Party and the ACT Party in order to get a stable Government in an MMP environment. But, as you know and I know, our view from the National Party is that this bill is too blunt, is too simplistic, that it fails to address equal citizenship and equality of opportunity for iwi members, Māori, and all New Zealanders, and that our quest is to ensure equal citizenship and equality of opportunity for Māori and for everyone.

Hon Peeni Henare: Should the Treaty principles bill be voted down, will he commit to ensuring that every Minister directs their agencies to uphold their Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: National will vote this bill down at its second reading, and it is absolutely clear to us that the Treaty responsibilities and obligations, whether they come from a settlement arrangement or otherwise, need to be upheld and pursued by agencies across this Government and future Governments.

Hon Peeni Henare: Who is correct: the Prime Minister, who says the Treaty principles bill is “divisive”; or David Seymour, who says the bill is not divisive, and what does he think that these divided opinions mean for the Māori-Crown relationship?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I stand by the Prime Minister’s comments and say this: the Treaty of Waitangi—Te Tiriti o Waitangi—can be and should be and will be a force for kotahitanga.

Hon Peeni Henare: Will he commit to, after his vote is registered as in support of the Treaty principles bill, fronting up to the hīkoi on the forecourt of Parliament on Tuesday and explaining his decision?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: E te Māngai, e mihi ana ki tērā pātai. Me te mea nei kei te tautoko au i te anga whakamua o tō mātou Pirimia, tō tatou Pirimia, me te mea nei ko te tumanako ka taea e au te kōrero, te noho, wānga enei kaupapa me te tira haere e haere mai nei.

[Mr Speaker, I’d like to acknowledge that question. And to say, I am supporting the future aspirations of my Prime Minister, of our Prime Minster, in the hope that I can speak, sit, and discuss this bill with the right people.]

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: On the forecourt? He didn’t answer.

SPEAKER: Yes he did.

Question No. 9—Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti

9. to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: Does he consider that the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill threatens the continued existence of the Māori-Crown relationship?

E te Māngai, e mihi ana ki te pātai. [Mr Speaker, I acknowledge that question.] First, I wanted to acknowledge that there is significant opposition to this bill across many communities—tangata Māori, tangata Tiriti, tangata Pasifika. Second, in response to the question, this bill cannot and will not wipe out the responsibilities of rangatiratanga and Kāwanatanga, along with the quest to achieve equal citizenship and equality of opportunity. National supports the process to take this bill through to select committee. That was the output from negotiating the coalition Government; however, as you know, National will not support this bill beyond select committee and will vote it down.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What message is the Minister sending to te iwi Māori and ngā mokopuna in the gallery today that it is OK to compromise the mana o Te Tiriti?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As we know, and as I’ve discussed today, we have taken this matter forward as a result of negotiating a coalition arrangement, in light of an MMP environment and to ensure that it wasn’t left for other parties to create an unstable situation. However, what I can also add and say is that, please mauria mai ō pūkana, ō arero, ō tetē, tō ihi tō wehi tō wana [bring your bulging eyes, your protruding tongue, your clinging teeth, your fearlessness, your power, and your prowess] to the select committee process.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can you be a Minister of this Government and allow the Treaty principles bill to viciously attack your people?

SPEAKER: Look, reword that question. The Minister is not doing anything of the sort, and the question should not be as personally directed as that.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Ka pai. How can you be a Minister of this Government and allow the Treaty principles bill to viciously attack te iwi Māori?

Hon Simeon Brown: Point of order. She’s referring to you, Mr Speaker, and I think—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Can’t hear.

Hon Simeon Brown: Sorry. The member is saying “you” in the question, which, in this instance, is referring to you as the Speaker, and I would suggest that again she should be rewording that question.

SPEAKER: Well, look, I’ve taken a much more liberal approach to members using the term “you”. In the strictest sense, that is referring to the Chair, but I think that everyone knows it is a question directed to the Minister. I certainly didn’t for a minute think that the member was accusing me of attacking anybody, but if I’m wrong, she should tell me and I can take some action. Just ask the question again.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can he be a Minister of this Government and allow the Treaty principles bill to viciously attack te iwi Māori?

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s a basic rule in this House that questions cannot have assertions in them, and that is an assertion, which is not correct.

SPEAKER: Well, I would immediately point out to the Minister that answers can’t have assertions in them either, and, well, if you want to go down that track, it will become a very sterile House. I think, given the circumstances, the way in which the Minister is handling these questions, it’s not an unreasonable one to ask him to answer.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I can acknowledge that there is genuine hurt and pain across many communities as a result of this bill, but what I will say is—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: That’s it. Silence.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Ka mate tēnei pire ā te whakamutunga o te kōmiti arohaehae.

[This bill will be revoked at the end of the committee process.]

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How will the Minister use the position to fight for te iwi Māori if there is a referendum?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As we’ve said many times, whilst the National Party is a part of this coalition Government, we will vote down the proposed Treaty principles bill immediately after the select committee and at the second reading. That is what we will do, and I can repeat it as many times as you like in this Whare this afternoon.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, please, Mr Speaker. The question was specific. You may think otherwise, but the question specifically asked what role or how the Minister would use the role to fight for te iwi Māori if the referendum got through. There is an assumption that it won’t get through.

SPEAKER: Yes, yes, I know.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: So the question was really targeted—

SPEAKER: The assumption was that the bill would pass. The Minister answered, saying it’s not going to pass, which nullifies the question.

Question No. 10—Justice

10. to the Minister of Justice: Does he have confidence that the Government is upholding the rule of law and Aotearoa’s constitutional arrangements?

Yes. The Government is committed to upholding the rule of law and New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements. I’m also confident that our constitutional arrangements have the strength to withstand unhelpful comments, such as those by that member’s party leader that we have “A criminal justice system that we all know only serves to produce more harm, more crime, and more victims”, which is a slap in the face for the tens of thousands of Kiwis who work every day in the justice system to keep our communities safe.

SPEAKER: Yes, I’ll just point out that some of the Minister’s own answers there were somewhat incongruous with his concern about the questions asked earlier in the day. Tamatha Paul—sorry to interrupt you.

Tamatha Paul: Thanks, Mr Speaker. How is it consistent with upholding our constitutional arrangements for the Government to, in the words of the most senior legal counsel in our country, “unilaterally [change] the meaning of te Tiriti”?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the member opposite doesn’t seem to understand the processes of the Parliament—that would only happen if a law was passed and it did indeed do what the member claims. We won’t be passing it, and it doesn’t even do what the member suggests.

Tamatha Paul: What would be the effect of the Government proceeding with a bill that 40 King’s Counsel say would “cause significant legal confusion and uncertainty, inevitably resulting in protracted litigation and cost.”?

SPEAKER: Well, no disrespect to the opinion of the learned King’s Counsel, but that is also a supposition. I’m not sure that the Minister is responsible for answering such a supposition. Please ask another question without loss of that question.

Tamatha Paul: Does he agree with the open letter to the Government from 40 King’s Counsel stating that the Treaty principles bill seeks to “rewrite the Treaty itself.”?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Look, the very nature of the law is that there is a wide variety of opinions, and lawyers always argue over every piece of legislation. They’re perfectly entitled to their views, and they’ll have an opportunity, no doubt, to discuss them.

Tamatha Paul: Has the open letter signed by the most senior legal counsel in this country given him pause for reflection or concern at all as the Minister responsible for the rule of law, constitutional arrangements, and protecting our democracy?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I’m always pausing and I’m always reflecting, but I won’t be taking lectures on the rule of law from that party, which has the view—it’s campaigned on removing welfare sanctions on people who are on the run. I mean, I know it’s expensive to be on the run, but I don’t think that strengthens the rule of law in this country.

Tamatha Paul: Will he heed the call of these 40 King’s Counsel and the Waitangi Tribunal and the tens of thousands of people currently in the hīkoi across the nation to “act responsibly now and abandon the Bill.”

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I’m always willing to listen to the views of all New Zealanders, and the Government is also committed to its coalition agreements.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What exactly triggers the Minister about my statements that the criminal justice system currently creates more victims, more crime, and more harm; and has he considered changing the Ministry of Justice’s website and the statistics on that, which make these points demonstrably clear?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: What triggers me is the fact that there are tens of thousands of New Zealanders working in the justice system that that member characterised in that way, and those people are doing their very best to keep this community safe. That member would do better to support them in their efforts to keep New Zealanders safe.

Question No. 11—Education

11. to the Minister of Education: Is she committed to the purpose of the Education and Training Act 2020 that establishes and regulates an education system that “honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi and supports Māori-Crown relationships”; if so, how?

Absolutely. As I have said many times, raising achievement and closing the equity gap is at the heart of everything that we do. For Māori students in mainstream education, the outcomes are of great concern to me. Regular school attendance rates are 39.1 percent, 12 percent of Māori students at the end of year 8 are at curriculum for maths, over a third of rangatahi Māori left without NCEA level 2 last year. Everyone has a part to play—parents, iwi, Māori leaders, schools, the Crown, and both sides of this House. This Government’s relentless focus on lifting attendance and achievement of tamariki Māori is an utterly essential way in which we must collectively honour the Treaty.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What does tino rangatiratanga in article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi mean for Māori education?

Hon David Seymour: Charter schools.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, there was a comment to my right that mentioned charter schools. It is also this Government’s commitment to kaupapa Māori education—[Interruption] In answer to the question, this Government is about choice in education. We are massive supporters of kaupapa Māori education, as evidenced by my support for Te Rūnanga nui o ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori o Aotearoa and Ngā Kura ā Iwi o Aotearoa, who I meet with regularly and have an excellent relationship with, and I’m rebuilding that relationship. It’s evident in the fact that we have also set aside $100 million for kura kaupapa property because of the state of their buildings. It’s evident in the fact that everything that we have done in structured literacy and maths in the mainstream, we have also provided in te reo Māori for rumaki and for kura kaupapa as well. We have delivered the world’s first structured literacy phonics checks in te reo Māori because we are supportive of choice in education.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the Minister’s answer, but I was actually asking the Minister what tino rangatiratanga in article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi means for Māori education.

SPEAKER: I would have thought that the long list of initiatives listed by the Minister is a satisfactory answer to the question; perhaps not the one the member wanted. Is there another supplementary?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How can she say that she is honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi when national education leaders including Te Akatea, NZEI Te Riu Roa, New Zealand Principals’ Federation, New Zealand Post Primary Teachers Association, Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand, and others have said, “As a group of national education organisations, we are united in our opposition to the Treaty principles bill.”?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: All of those organisations are also extraordinarily concerned about the achievement of our tamariki and rangatahi Māori. Every single one of those educational groups has talked about the fact that things like 66 percent of the young people in alternative education are our rangatahi Māori, because we are utterly failing them. This is a Government that is putting educational outcomes and the achievement of young Māori at the heart of everything we do so that they can go on to live the life that they want.

Hon Tama Potaka: How does her approach to Te Marautanga o Aotearoa give further effect to the Education and Training Act requirement to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’m proud to be supporting te reo Māori in line with article 2 of the Treaty through a refresh of Te Marautanga o Aotearoa. This Government is refreshing Te Marautanga o Aotearoa to be a knowledge-rich, year-by-year curriculum in te reo Māori; launching Rangaranga Reo ā-Tā, which is a structured literacy programme teaching reading, writing, and kōrero; providing free decodable books for the first time; and, as I mentioned, that world-first phonics check. These tools and resources have been developed with Māori education leaders and sector groups, demonstrating my commitment to Māori-Crown relationships and to raising Māori achievement.

Hon David Seymour: Would this Government consider abandoning charter schools supported by the Iwi Chairs Forum at the behest of the predominately Pākehā teacher unions, and, if not, why not?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Absolutely not. There are many Māori groups and excellent Māori educators around this country who are very excited at the prospect of running their own school and having self-determination in their own educational settings, and we support that because we know the outcomes are excellent.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How is she honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi and supporting Māori-Crown relationships when she is whitewashing the curriculum by removing Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the curriculum framework, Te Mātaiaho, and scrapping the group of experts contributing te ao Māori knowledge to science?

SPEAKER: OK—just a minute. Think about the question you’ve just asked—some of the concerns that have been expressed in the House, from both sides, I might say, about the use of various descriptors that are in the nature of an opinion. Ask the question again, without that descriptor.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How is she honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi and supporting Māori-Crown relationships when she is mainstreaming the curriculum by removing Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the curriculum framework, Te Mātaiaho, and scrapping the group of experts contributing te ao Māori knowledge to the science curriculum?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: There have only been two parts of the curriculum that have been released, English and maths, and also in Pāngarau as well. Now, the full curriculum with all of the details has yet to be released. So that member’s assertion that things have been taken out is not true, because we haven’t released the full document yet.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How is rebalancing Aotearoa histories in school curriculum honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi and supporting Māori-Crown relationships?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: That’s an excellent question. One of the problems that the Education Review Office determined in their report into the New Zealand histories curriculum was that there wasn’t enough of our national history being taught. There wasn’t enough consistency in the curriculum. For example, there are certain—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Too much Māori!

Hon ERICA STANFORD: That member should listen, because this is quite important. There are certain things like the Māori Land Wars, and people like Meri Te Tai, that we should all learn about. Unfortunately, the history curriculum is far too localised and it’s not consistent enough. We are going to make sure that there are certain things that every single child in New Zealand should learn about our national history and how it links to international events.

James Meager: What broader actions is she taking—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute.

James Meager: What broader actions is she taking to establish a Māori education work programme and honour Māori-Crown relationships?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’m delighted that this Government has a quarter 4 target to deliver a Māori education action plan. Work on this is well along the way, supported by my recent appointment of my Māori Education Advisory Group led by Dr Wayne Ngata. A key recent announcement included the funding of Pāngarau maths resources for Māori medium and kura, including student workbooks and teacher guides that are curriculum aligned and available in either English or te reo Māori. Now, if the previous Government had been concerned about Māori achievement rates, we wouldn’t be sitting at 12 percent of Māori kids being at curriculum for mathematics.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How is she honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi and supporting Māori-Crown relationships when Te Akatea, who represent Māori tumuaki and leaders across Aotearoa, including the 97 percent of Māori learners who participate in English medium schooling, say they have not been consulted on any of the Government’s education priorities or proposed changes to the Act that downgrade Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the national education learning priorities?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I have met with most of those groups. In fact, the one that the teachers spoke—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Just one?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ve met with Te Akatea and Bruce Jepsen—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Did you consult them on it?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: And the ministry and I both consult with a wide group of principals and groups who represent unions, teachers, including Te Akatea.

Question No. 12—Land Information

12. to the Minister for Land Information: What announcements has the Government made on removing roadblocks to building infrastructure?

The Government is committed to making it easier to build infrastructure in New Zealand. As part of a suite of efforts to achieve this, we have appointed an independent expert advisory panel to review the Public Works Act. This important legislation allows the Government to acquire land for critical infrastructure, of course while also respecting and acknowledging property rights. I’m pleased to say that the panel has now reported back to me on recommendations for improving the fairness and efficiency of the Act.

Tom Rutherford: Why does the Public Works Act require a review?

Hon CHRIS PENK: New Zealand has a widely acknowledge infrastructure deficit which is holding us back socially, environmentally, and economically. We’re determined to do something about that, and, in particular, to improve our levels of productivity, lift our standard of living, and so we need it to be easier to build infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, public transport facilities, water facilities, and flood mitigation works. The Public Works Act has not been substantially amended since 1988. It’s outdated in several key respects, leading to long delays and cost blowouts.

Tom Rutherford: What did the review focus on?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The independent expert advisory panel has completed a short, sharp review of the Act, focusing on areas in which the efficiency, effectiveness, and clarity of the Act can be improved. Modern, large-scale infrastructure projects often create a knock-on effect where existing infrastructure must be upgraded or moved to accommodate the new project. For example, the current version of the Public Works Act does not allow for this and nor does it allow for collaboration between local and central government agencies.

Tom Rutherford: When will these changes come into effect?

Hon CHRIS PENK: We are moving at pace—you’ll be pleased to hear. The Government is considering the panel’s recommendations, and I hope to make an announcement shortly. An amendment bill will likely be introduced into this Parliament in the middle of next year.