Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: How does the result of the recent US election affect New Zealand?

The result of every US presidential election, as in the last 100 years, has had and will have a significant impact on New Zealand, our region, and indeed, the world. Donald Trump’s election as the United States’ 47th President will be no exception. We congratulate President Trump and J D Vance on their election victory, and we look forward to working with them and their incoming administration. But also, we acknowledge the contribution of outgoing President Joe Biden and his administration towards relations between New Zealand and the United States. The United States is one of New Zealand’s closest and most important partners, and we plan to further enhance our relationship with the US and the American people over the next four years.

Jenny Marcroft: How does New Zealand intend to engage with the second Trump administration?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We are ready and have hit the ground running with the incoming Trump administration. This was a decision for the American people, not for us. But we have prepared for President Trump’s re-election. That preparation has included ensuring we have the right people working on the New Zealand - US relationship in Washington, DC; around the United States; and back here in New Zealand.

Jenny Marcroft: How does New Zealand think the world will change in policy terms under a new administration?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As happens after any change of leadership, President Trump will no doubt pursue his own policy agenda. But it’s important to note that President Trump will not take effect—in terms of the office, being sworn in—until 20 January 2025. Over the next 2½ months until President Trump’s inauguration, the New Zealand Government will be working hard to better understand the incoming administration’s policy agenda. We’ll also be working on how we can best engage with the new administration on policy cooperation for the mutual benefit of both of our countries and our peoples.

Hon David Parker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Acknowledging the successful outcome for President Trump in the USA, does the Minister see any risk to Kiwi workers and our economy from the prospect of substantial tariffs in addition to those the last Trump administration imposed on New Zealand’s steel and aluminium exports; or from being, to use the Prime Minister’s words, a “force multiplier” for the USA under pillar 2 of AUKUS, which aims to contain China, our largest trading partner, which doesn’t impose tariffs on New Zealand exporters; or from the increasing global temperatures, droughts, and storm damage which will result if the USA withdraws from climate action?

SPEAKER: Yeah, two legs to a question.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As that member will know, we’re about to re-engage with an administration where we got right on the cusp of a free-trade agreement; where he turned in front of the then Prime Minister—because of the work we’d done—and said to his team, “Well, why not?” We missed a chance then; we don’t intend to miss that chance this time.

Teanau Tuiono: Given President-Elect Trump’s position on foreign policy and human rights, will he commit to not joining AUKUS, and, if not, why not?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that AUKUS is a work in progress with respect to pillar 2, and that member’s party was part and parcel of that arrangement—begun with a commissioned paper in September of 2021 under the then Labour Government; a report in October 2021—on which we have worked in the same way ever since, with no changes at all; so much so that the former defence Minister Andrew Little says that we have got it about right.

Ricardo Menéndez March: You’re not paying attention.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What’s that—what’s that?

SPEAKER: No, no—no response.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Adios amigos. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, I didn’t hear that. What did you say?

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Just hang on. Points of order are heard in silence.

Ricardo Menéndez March: This is not the first time that I am subject to this kind of pretty overt type of behaviour, and I take personal offence to what has just occurred and note that it is incredibly unstatesmanlike from the Acting Prime Minister.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I speak to that, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order—hang on, wait on, wait on, wait on. We’ll just keep everything quiet. Everyone hears points of order in silence.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We cannot have these members so sensitive. All I said in Spanish was “Goodbye, my friend.”, but he’s offended by that. Now, for goodness’ sake, we have a very diverse Parliament.

Steve Abel: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: When the House goes quiet—and let me assure people that although it’s been 12 months that I’ve been in the Chair, nearly, and no one’s been asked to leave the House, it’s very close. Do not make interjections or other reactions to points of order.

Steve Abel: In the context of the election result in the United States, which was heavily predicated on extreme actions against the Mexican people on the southern border of the United States, I think the comment by the Deputy Prime Minister is particularly pernicious.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Mr Speaker, could I just reply and say nothing of the sort was intended, nor, as the member would have found out if he had studied very closely the closing polls in the United States, did the Latino vote change—rather, it went the other way; it went towards Trump.

SPEAKER: I think we’ll just let that matter lie, but those sort of comments generally should be resisted.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Kia ora, e te Pīka. How can the Government go into a relationship with a President who has actively promoted and deliberately supported the genocide of a people in Palestine?

SPEAKER: Look, I—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Mr Speaker, could I say I have no intention—

SPEAKER: Hang on a minute, I haven’t called the member—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I have no intention of answering a question made so malignantly as that without any shred of evidence whatsoever. This country’s foreign policy and our future economic wellbeing and Pacific wellbeing depends on better thinking than that.

SPEAKER: Members need to be aware that just as it is inappropriate for Ministers to make accusations in answers, it is also inappropriate to make accusations in questions.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: What advice, if any, did she receive on the potential impacts on the cost of moving freight by rail between the North Island and South Island before announcing the cancellation of the order for rail-enabled ferries?

The question reflects some misunderstanding on the part of the member. Ministers received several pieces of advice about various aspects of Project iReX before Cabinet decided in December last year to not meet KiwiRail’s request for further funding for the project. The advice we received has been proactively released and is on the Treasury website. The advice focuses on the efficiency of the transport system as opposed to the specific cost of freight. Ministers’ assessments was that Project iReX was inherently flawed, with large cost blowouts for landside infrastructure, and the project needed to be reset.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Did she receive any advice on the fiscal impacts of adding thousands of trucks to the road as a result of not having rail-enabled ferries, as has been indicated by the managing director of Mainfreight—will be the result of not having rail-enabled ferries—before announcing the cancellation of the order?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, that question is littered with assumptions, many of which are completely wrong.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Could the Minister please tell me which of the statements that were made in the previous question are erroneous assumptions, as she claims?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I’ll start with the assumption that there would be more freight going on trucks—that’s a big assumption.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does the Minister, therefore, think that the managing director of Mainfreight, our largest freight operator in the country, is wrong or is lying when he says that his company will put at least 5,000 additional truck and trailer movements on the roads as a result of the loss of rail-enabled ferries?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I’ve had many conversations with a range of people involved in getting freight across the country, including Don Braid from Mainfreight. What he would reflect to the member is that decisions have not been made by Cabinet on what kind of ferries there will be or what the arrangements for freight would be, so it’s very premature to be making those sorts of assessments.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Sir, I want us to return to a point I made yesterday, Speakers’ Ruling 192. We’ve got further evidence of these wild and indiscriminate claims being attributed without decent evidence that the said person actually made those statements in that context.

SPEAKER: That’s worthwhile—

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order. Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Oh—a point of order, or are you speaking to the point of order?

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Well, speaking to the point of order. Would I be able to table the quote from Don Braid where he literally says what I just said, in response to the Minister’s accusation that it’s an unfounded misquote?

SPEAKER: You can seek leave for that after I’ve dealt with the point of order. Firstly, members should be aware of those two provisions that were discussed yesterday in relation to questions. Those provisions also apply to answers. Do you now wish to seek leave of the House?

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order. I seek leave of the House to table an article which quotes Don Braid saying that there will be 5,000 additional truck and trailer movements, at least from his company, if there are not rail-enabled ferries.

SPEAKER: And where was the article published?

Hon Julie Anne Genter: On Radio New Zealand.

SPEAKER: I think that’s publicly available.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order, Mr Speaker. In the Minister’s last few responses, she said no decisions have been taken. However, my question was: had she asked for or received advice on these issues before taking a decision that led to the announcement of the cancellation of the ferries?

SPEAKER: Well, the point is that you’ve asked the question in two different ways. I’d ask the member to think carefully about the way the question is structured, because the way the Minister has answered is appropriate to the way the question was asked. You’re welcome to look at the Hansard to work out what I’m saying. Please, if you’ve got another supplementary, ask it now.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does she think Government should review all the evidence about the costs, benefits, and impacts of infrastructure decisions before cancelling or announcing projects?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: When an infrastructure project changes from being an investment in ships that is expected to cost less than a billion dollars into an investment that is expected to cost at least $3 billion dollars—80 percent of which are costs for port-side infrastructure and not ships—when a project has consistent blowouts, and when a previous Government chooses to ignore those, then, yes. When a new Government is elected, it needs to take action.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Why has she considered that $3 billion for this iReX project, which had a business case and clear strategic value of retaining a rail connection between the North and South Islands, was unaffordable but, yesterday, has committed to at least $3 billion to add less than 2 kilometres of one-car lane in each direction in central Wellington before an investment case has even begun?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, if the member for Rongotai wishes to tell the people of Miramar that they don’t deserve a duplicate Mount Victoria tunnel, that they should sit in traffic, that their buses should go slowly, and that they should have inadequate ability to cycle through the tunnel to get to work, then she is welcome to go and campaign on her commitment to get rid of the second tunnel. Good luck.

I should have ruled that—[Interruption] The House will go into silence. I should have ruled that question out—

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Why?

SPEAKER: Excuse me. Because it doesn’t relate to the primary question—quite simple. I’m not going to have an argument with you, and I’d suggest you don’t have an argument with me.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Yes. In particular, I stand by the statement I made yesterday, which was that “today’s unemployment statistic is yet another reminder of how letting inflation get a grip on the economy was so damaging.” I wonder if the member agrees with that statement.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it a good use of taxpayer funds to support a piece of proposed legislation that will not proceed past the select committee stage but will cost the country more in racial disharmony?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Legislation progresses to the House in a number of ways. There are, for example, a number of members’ bills that I would not wish to progress, but it is important for democracy that legislation can come to the House.

SPEAKER: OK, that’s enough of the loud barracking. Rare and reasonable interjection is fair enough, but not that.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it important to democracy to support a piece of proposed legislation that will have a cost to racial disharmony and will not proceed anywhere past the second reading?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am struggling to see what responsibility I have for that question as the Minister of Finance.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her statement regarding the Interislander ferries from six weeks ago that “We will ensure that we will make an announcement shortly.”; if so, when is shortly?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes; it’ll be this year.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Isn’t it the case that regardless of what option is progressed, the Picton Wharf and terminal will be required to be rebuilt?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why did she prematurely decide to cancel the Hyundai ferry contract when what she should have done is sought options for the port-side infrastructure instead?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: There are a couple of things going on here. The first thing is the member is making some presumptions around the Cook Strait solution that the Government will come to. What she is right to assume is that that would require some port-side infrastructure. There are a couple of relevant facts. One is that the infrastructure at CentrePort and the infrastructure in Picton may require upgrades in the future. There are of course a number of options available to the Government. There are a number of people who use port infrastructure. There are a number of ways in which Cook Strait ferries can be arranged. It is not helpful for me to address hypotheticals such as those that the member is presenting.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the Government’s fiscal position?

Well, I have released today the financial statements of the Government for the first quarter of the financial year. In fact, they were released by Treasury. The statements detail Crown revenue and expenditure for the three months to 30 September and update the operating balance before gains and losses (OBEGAL) and the Crown’s debt position.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What did the financial statements show?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The statements show core Crown revenue in the first three months of the year totalled $32.3 billion and core Crown expenses totalled $34.9 billion. Those numbers are broadly in line with Treasury’s last set of forecasts made for the Budget in May. However, the OBEGAL deficit was $700 million larger than forecast, at $4.2 billion for the quarter, and net core Crown debt was also $700 million larger than forecast, at $177.6 billion.

Dr Hamish Campbell: Why was the OBEGAL deficit larger than forecast?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The increase is mostly attributable to the performance of Crown entities. The results do show that the Government has slowed the growth of Government expenditure; however, they also show that it is going to take time to deal with the additional costs that have been baked into the system by the previous Government. These include the cost of servicing the additional debt incurred between 2017 and 2023. That extra debt amounts to $118 billion, which for the members’ knowledge is the equivalent of $22,000 for every person in New Zealand. In light of this, I note a statement made on Radio New Zealand today from a member who said, “That’s why we’re calling on the Government strongly to get”—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

SPEAKER: A point of order.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —“the economy moving through Government spending.”

Hon Kieran McAnulty: The fact that the Minister continued with that quote after you called me for a point of order makes my point, which is that the first part of that comment was marginal; the second part is clearly in breach. This is a question from her own member. It seems like we have to go through this point with this Minister almost every sitting week. These questions should not be used to make a political point at the Opposition’s expense. Facts and opinion are completely different.

SPEAKER: Well, there are parts of your point of order that I would accept. The last part is not quite so easily acceptable. But the answer is far too long for a Government question. We’ll try another one.

Dr Hamish Campbell: How is the Government going to get the books back in balance?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Today’s result does reinforce the need to maintain careful spending, get better value for money, and drive economic growth. Driving growth is a really important part of the equation. If we not only want to get the books back in order but lift living standards, we need to grow the economy faster. Unlike our predecessors, the Government understands that it is business—

SPEAKER: That’s enough.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —that creates jobs.

SPEAKER: No, that’s enough. No, look, sorry, that probably does illustrate the point that was being made by Mr McAnulty.

Question No. 5—Child Poverty Reduction

5. to the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction: What policies of this Government, if any, risk increasing material hardship and child poverty?

Our Government is focused on reducing material hardship and lifting children out of poverty. That’s why we made significant investments in Budget ’24, with policies that support families experiencing hardship, including tax relief, FamilyBoost, and increasing the in-work tax credit. Treasury modelling shows the investments in Budget 2024 are estimated to lift around 17,000 children out of poverty, on the after-housing-cost measure, by 2026-27. Our Government is focused on practical solutions, including breaking the cycles of welfare dependency; improving educational outcomes to help keep children out of poverty in the long term. We know this approach works because during the last full four years of the previous National-led Government, from the year 2013 to 2017, the number of children in material hardship fell by 56,200.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is it true she was advised that changes to school lunches and public transport discounts would have a negative progress towards meeting her child poverty targets?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m really proud of the Government school lunch programme because, in effect, what we are doing is actually providing school lunch to an additional 10,000 children that we know are struggling—their families are struggling with food. So I’m really proud of the changes that our Government has made possible to alleviate the burden for families.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she saying that she has received no advice indicating that several of her Government’s policies would lead to negative progress towards meeting her child poverty targets?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: What I would say is, as I said in answer previously to that member, Ministers receive advice and then further advice, and the further advice and what the Government actually announced around Ka Ora, Ka Ako will absolutely buffer families who are currently experiencing challenges putting food on the table. In fact, our Government has found a way to make it possible to ensure that 10,000 additional children receive the school lunch programme.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she accept that this Government’s actions are contributing to the 2028 child poverty reduction targets becoming increasingly unachievable because of their multiple policies locking more children into poverty?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I absolutely disagree with that. Our Government has been clearly focused on dealing with the cost of living crisis, growing the economy, and improving things like school attendance and school achievement, which we know contribute to the long-term impacts and effects on children, which is why we’ve got targets in these areas.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How can she disagree with the previous question when she has been advised that several of her Government’s policies would negatively contribute to meeting her child poverty reduction targets?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because, as I said in my primary answer, I’m proud of Budget 2024, which will lift 17,000 children out of poverty. We saw six years of the previous Government; material hardship went up by 4,100 when it was supposedly the priority.

Question No. 6—Health

6. to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by her statement that “Once my office was fully staffed, operational issues regarding management of information was remedied”; and, if so, how was she unaware until yesterday that she never released an unredacted version of the document to the requestor?

Yes. I reject the member’s assertion that I was unaware an unredacted version had not been released, because she has mischaracterised my personal explanation from yesterday. And I would point out that while the member continues to fixate on old news and trying to find links where there aren’t any, this Government is getting on with actually supporting smokers to quit cigarettes through practical tools and approaches. Contrary to the previous Government’s approach, I am interested in the views of front-line quit-smoking providers—who understand the challenges for long-term addicted smokers—rather than implementing headline-catching, misdirected slogans.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does she stand by the decision she made to redact the phrases “nicotine is as harmful as caffeine” and that tobacco control measures amount to “nanny state nonsense”?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The Official Information Act provides for withholding information to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the free and frank expression of opinions. I have been clear in this House that the document in question refers to statements, policies, and positions of the New Zealand First Party, and when given by a Minister to officials, it is not unreasonable to think that there are free and frank statements within it, as well as public policy positions that are under active consideration.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does she understand now that she withheld that information under a section of the Act that only applies to information tendered by officials, and, if so, she should be able to say who wrote it or who gave her that document?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I have not received any notice about a complaint being made about information released. The member could speculate about anything, but has no grounds for the assertion. I note that if the member were concerned about redactions, the information was received by her in March this year, and no complaint has been made, as far as I am aware.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: One more.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did she claim on Tuesday that her acting contrary to the law was the result of short-term operational issues, when the fact is she continued to inappropriately withhold information while being under investigation by the Ombudsman well into June?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Yet again, I have not received a complaint in relation to the document in question. So the member can make the assertion, but, frankly, she is not qualified to make that assessment. There is active consideration, as she’s fully aware, around the Official Information Act management.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister please explain to the original questioner, very slowly, that one requestor already had an unredacted copy, which was leaked to him and, no doubt, her?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Yes. This whole issue arose from a leaked document, for which the ministry has offered apologies.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does she understand that whether there’s an Ombudsman complaint or not, she needs to be able to explain the decisions she made, according to the Act?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Yes. All of the explanations around redaction have been made. There is active consideration around policy positions, which is covered for under the Official Information Act, and that has been fully responded to.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether or not in this inquiry she expects to get the information from the original questioner that she had already received an unredacted copy, and what is all this nonsense, therefore, about?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: What I can say is that I apologise to New Zealanders who are trying to give up smoking and are being distracted by an Opposition who have absolutely no ability to understand what important work needs to be undertaken. The previous Government failed to deliver a proper, effective policy position, and we are fixing it.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: So this week are we going to have that sort of theatrics, or are we going to have what we had last week—

SPEAKER: No, no, just ask a question.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is she going to continue to blame everyone but herself—officials, the Opposition, the media—or will she fess up and just say how the document ended up in her office?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Could I have the question again, because I missed it with the noise?

SPEAKER: I think a fair warning has been given to the House about people making a noise or whatever during a question being asked, so just don’t push it any further. Would Dr Ayesha Verrall please ask that question again.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is she going to continue blaming everyone but herself—officials, the Opposition, the media—or will she fess up and just say how the document ended up in her office?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: This topic has been fully traversed. I have explained repeatedly to this House where the document came from. I’m not sure what the mystery is to the member. She has not made any concerns about the redacted version she’s received.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has she or her department, reformed as it now is, been able to work out why on earth you would be trying to seek a redacted copy when you’ve already got an unredacted one?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: There’s no responsibility there.

SPEAKER: Yes, she does.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I again would reflect on the fact that this issue is about some advice that was being used to form policy positions. There is a big programme of work going forward, and I hope that when the next legislation comes to the House around vaping controls, we will get support across the House to introduce proper policy positions.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How has she continued to find herself trapped in the web of her self-contradictions, and how does that reflect on her ability to manage her portfolios in a way that benefits the New Zealand public?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, you cannot open with a statement like that and expect it to be a satisfactory parliamentary question. I mean, with the greatest respect—and you’re a most experienced person—she should’ve been stopped in her tracks and asked to get some advice about how you conduct yourself in Parliament when it comes to question time.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: OK, you can speak to the point of order.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The Minister that is being questioned has on at least two occasions had to correct responses to a number of questions that Dr Ayesha Verrall has asked her. They themselves are contradictions, and so it is entirely appropriate, reflecting on the scope of the question and the history leading up to it, to use that phrase in a question.

SPEAKER: There’s nothing wrong with using the phrase about there being contradictions, but there is a problem with the further descriptors that were put around that. Dr Ayesha Verrall might like to ask the question in a way that brings it into order.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How has she found herself needing to apologise again for her self-contradictions in the House, and how does that reflect on her ability to be a Minister in the New Zealand Government?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I reject the assertions in that question. I did not apologise yesterday; I sought leave to make a clarification and correction of what was said.

Question No. 7—Health

7. to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has the Government made about improving access to breast cancer screening for New Zealand women?

Last week, the Government announced that free breast-screening is being extended for 70- to 74-year-old women, starting in the Nelson-Marlborough district, ahead of a national roll-out late next year. This is something that has been called for over many years. The aim of breast screening is to find breast cancers early before there are any noticeable signs and symptoms, with early detection improving management options and outcomes. We know that breast cancer is one of the most common cancers in New Zealand with about 3,400 women diagnosed with the disease each year. So, extending screening can save lives. That is why this initiative is a priority for our Government.

Suze Redmayne: What does this age extension mean for New Zealand women?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This age extension could potentially save 22 lives per year. That’s not just 22 women but also their families, friends, and loved ones who won’t have to endure the attendant impact of cancer. Data shows that women who participate in the BreastScreen Aotearoa programme are 34 percent less likely to die from breast cancer. Increasing access through this age extension allows us to catch more cancers early, which means better treatment outcomes. We’ll also be looking to improve the outcomes for women such as the more than 60 women who succumbed in this age group in the latest data of 2019.

Suze Redmayne: How will this scheme be deployed across the country?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Extending breast screening to an approximately 60,000 additional eligible women per year takes an immense amount of planning, including investment in workforce and the physical infrastructure. I want to thank everyone involved for their efforts to date, and I look forward to seeing this programme rolled out nationwide next year. Early detection will save lives.

Suze Redmayne: What other actions has the Government taken to improve outcomes for New Zealanders with cancer?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This extension of breast screening is just one action we’ve taken for better cancer care. We’ve also introduced a target for faster cancer treatment, increased access to CT scanning, expanded access to life-extending cancer medicines through our transformative $604 million investment in Pharmac, and started building a new cancer radiotherapy machine at Whangārei Hospital. We remain committed to improving outcomes for the thousands of Kiwis and their families affected by cancer each year.

Question No. 6 to Minister

Point of order. I didn’t want to interrupt the important matters discussed in the last question, but I have a point of order relating to question No. 6. In the exchange with the last supplementary, the Minister stated that she did not apologise yesterday, but, in fact, I have here the Hansard of her statement, and it includes, “and I apologise for any confusion to the House.”

OK, thank you for that. Question No. 8.

Question No. 8—Housing

8. to the Associate Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement that “I’m not worried that some are now homeless” regarding people who have left emergency housing; if so, why?

This was a similar question asked by the Hon Willie Jackson in August. As I said then and as I will now, the member mischaracterised the context in which the comments were made around the Government’s priority one fast track to get whānau with tamariki who had been staying longer than 12 weeks in emergency housing out of that moral, financial, cultural, and social catastrophe. The question asked: am I not worried that some are now homeless? My answer is that none of the 726 households and 1,452 tamariki living in emergency housing and transitioned through priority one by 30 September 2024 into social housing were homeless when placed. Every single one of those 1,452 children were placed into warm, dry homes.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: When he says he is worried about emergency housing numbers but isn’t worried that “some are now homeless”, isn’t he just saying that all he’s really worried about is reducing costs?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: This Government has a target—target No. 8—to reduce the number of households living in emergency housing by 75 percent by 2030. We are up to 62 percent in nine months. The member may use chicanery and innuendo to try and trap me into an answer, but I’ll repeat that, in this House, we are absolutely dedicated to ensuring that those with genuine need for short-term stays in temporary accommodation in most urban and city centres in New Zealand can access that, but we have been absolutely committed to ensuring that many thousands of tamariki living in that catastrophe move into warm, dry homes.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: How can he credibly claim this policy is a success when his official advice was that these changes to entry criteria for emergency housing would increase homelessness, and when asked why 20 percent of people that have left emergency housing are now homeless, his response was “I’m not worried.”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Again, the member uses fuzzy maths to describe the actual situation. The actual situation is when we arrived, we knew where around 50 percent of those leaving and exiting emergency housing were going to. Now, through the dedicated diligence and professionalism of our officials and, of course, the Ministers who are involved with housing, we know where nearly 80 percent of people are going to when they exit. The other 20 percent we may not know, because it’s not required of people leaving emergency housing to actually tell officials where they’re going to.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: How many people have been declined emergency housing since he changed the entry criteria?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: That is a written question that the member can send to my office, but what I can say is that by September, over 2,000 tamariki had left emergency housing in the nine months to date.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that in recent years, thousands of New Zealand children have been brought up in motel rooms, often with gang members living next door, in circumstances that were by nature transitory, and today thousands fewer children are living in those circumstances?

SPEAKER: I’ll allow the question but it needs to be succinct.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I can confirm that. I can also confirm that when we arrived, we were spending around a million dollars a day on emergency housing, and now it’s less than half a million.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Yep—when the House gathers itself.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: How many people have been moved into social or community housing, paid for and built by this Government?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Again, I can reiterate and respond to the member, who asked a very similar question last week, that social housing has been built by a number of Governments over the years, and those people that have moved into those social houses built by a number of Governments over many years are very, very comfortable. What I can also say is this: there continues to be availability for emergency housing for those with genuine need for a short-term stay in temporary accommodation in most urban centres in this country.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister responded to a pretty straight question with a statement that referred to past Governments; he did not respond to the straight question about this Government. He should have another go.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you for giving me the direction as to how I should proceed on this, but I think it’s not unreasonable that he makes the point that since 1938, a number of Governments have built social housing for New Zealand.

Hon Nicola Willis: In light of the implication of the questions from the member opposite, is it the Minister’s view that it would be a sign of success if there were more New Zealanders living in emergency motel rooms?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: It will not be a sign of success, and that’s why I’m very proud, along with my ministerial and caucus colleagues, that we have seen thousands of people leave emergency housing in the last nine months.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Isn’t it actually the case that any people that are now housed are in houses funded and built not by this Government but by the previous Labour Government and that—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: The question is going to be started again because we listen in silence to people’s questions.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you, sir. Isn’t it actually the case that any people that are now housed are housed in homes built and paid for by the previous Labour Government, and the decrease in emergency housing numbers is—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, a question that begins “Isn’t it actually the case” is not a question; it’s a statement. And the members are asked here to come to Parliament to ask questions properly, not to make a statement and ask for somebody to confirm it or otherwise. That is not how questions are framed here. And they should know it after all this time they’ve been here.

SPEAKER: Yes, I do recall the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt sitting in this Chair, making that very point with a Minister who was part of a coalition Government at the time. I think where it ended up was that it depends on the context of where it goes from there. So the Minister’s point is essentially correct, but the judgment is how the question ends up, and that’s why we need to listen carefully to the whole question. But if the member might like to think about the way he asked that question, it would be helpful.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I’m all for the order of the House, sir, so I’ll have another crack.

SPEAKER: There’s no need for you to make those sorts of, you know, self-aggrandising comments.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I apologise for taking your lead, sir.

SPEAKER: Yes, are you looking for an early flight or what’s the story?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: No, I’m not. Is it not the case that any people that are now homed from emergency housing are in homes funded and built by the previous Labour Government, and the decrease in emergency housing numbers is because he in his changing criteria is stopping people getting into emergency housing in the first place?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: It is the case that the taxpayers of Aotearoa New Zealand have paid for social housing that has been built by a number of Governments over time. And, just to add this, in the event that the member has ever been involved in building houses before, I think it would be pretty incredible for you to buy the land, plan the house, get the funding support, and go through all the regulatory molasses to build a house within nine months.

Question No. 9—Police

9. to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has he seen on the policing of gangs?

Yesterday, police arrested three associates of the Mongols gang in Christchurch, recovering stolen property from the gang’s headquarters. This comes in advance of an event they were organising in Canterbury this week. Police have prepared for this event and have been working to prevent it disrupting members of the public going about their lawful business.

Tim van de Molen: What steps is Police taking to disrupt gang events?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Police will be working to ensure the maintenance of law during the Mongols’ event this week. They are also working closely with Immigration New Zealand to prevent international members of the gang entering New Zealand to celebrate and glorify their criminal activity.

Tim van de Molen: Why is the Government working to prevent Mongols gang members entering New Zealand?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: By placing border alerts and suspending visa-waiver status on known Mongols members, the Government is sending a clear message that they’re not welcome in New Zealand for a celebration of their criminal behaviour. This Government does not tolerate gangs and the misery that they peddle, and refuses to allow others to come into our country and glorify that misery.

Tim van de Molen: What does he say to recent rhetoric around police operations cracking down on gangs?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Police have done an outstanding job on a 10-month operation across the North Island, and in particular targeting the Mongrel Mob Barbarians for drug dealing, possession of illegal weapons, and planning hit jobs. We are lucky in this country to have a world-class police service deeply connected to the communities that they serve and who take their responsibility of keeping Kiwis safe seriously.

Question No. 10—Justice

10. to the Associate Minister of Justice: What recent reports, if any, has she seen in relation to anti-money laundering and countering terrorism financing regulations?

Business New Zealand recently released a report: Reducing compliance burden on New Zealand small businesses. The report highlights that the current anti - money-laundering law places an unnecessary burden on small businesses. It points to repetitive information requests, too many procedural steps, inconsistent requirements, excessive costs, and a lack of coordination in the system as serious issues weighing heavily on small business productivity.

Laura McClure: What work is currently under way to address the issues raised in that report?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: The first phase of my anti - money-laundering reforms has taken initial steps to address some of the concerns Business New Zealand has raised. This work will consolidate the three current regulators: the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, the Financial Markets Authority, and the Department of Internal Affairs into a single regulatory body under the Department of Internal Affairs. This consolidation will cut red tape, streamline processes, and reduce the high compliance costs that the report identifies as obstacles for small businesses.

Laura McClure: How does the Minister’s three-phase work programme address specific recommendations from the Business New Zealand report on anti - money-laundering?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: My three-phase work programme directly addresses the recommendations to simplify and streamline anti - money-laundering (AML) processes. Through the Statutes Amendment Bill, which is currently before the House, I’m introducing immediate relief that targets the report’s call for straightforward compliance. Moving to a single AML supervisor will also ensure that clear, consistent guidelines are available for small businesses, allowing them to meet compliance standards more efficiently without having to jump through the unnecessary regulatory hoops.

Laura McClure: Will the Minister focus on simplifying customer due diligence to address the report’s specific recommendations?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Yes. Businesses have highlighted excessive customer due diligence as a primary challenge for small business. I’m addressing this directly through the adoption of a risk-based approach in the first and third phases of my reform programme. By streamlining these due diligence requirements, I am to reduce compliance costs and improve productivity for small businesses, allowing them to operate more freely and contribute to New Zealand’s economic growth.

Question No. 11—Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti

11. to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: Does he stand by all the Government’s statements and actions?

Yes, anā, particularly the resolution between three Kurahaupō iwi in the top of the South Island, Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka-a-Māui, who have received $25 million in alternative redress after the Woodbourne airport could not be transferred to them because of PFAs, or chemical poisoning, under the land.

Hon Peeni Henare: Does he stand by the Government’s action to introduce the Treaty principles bill earlier than expected, and if so, what does he say to iwi leaders who have described this as “dishonourable and reckless”, and if not, why not?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I stand by the Government’s and Cabinet’s decision to introduce the Treaty principles bill, and I recognise and acknowledge the genuine concerns expressed by iwi leaders.

Hon Peeni Henare: Is Rahui Papa correct when he said, “Get rid of the Māori-bashing, racist bills, policies, and procedures of this Government”; if not, why not?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Kei a Rahui Papa tōna ake piki amokura. [Rahui Papa has his own principles.]

Hon Peeni Henare: Is the Māori-Crown relationship better or worse under his leadership?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I believe that many, many Māori communities are very enthusiastic about the number of Māori tamariki who have left emergency housing. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I just ask the House to be quiet. That was ridiculous—the amount of barracking there. The Minister can start his answer again and people will be very restrained.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: My view is that the Māori-Crown relationship has been supported by the number of tamariki Māori who have left emergency housing, by the additional funding that has been given to Te Matatini, and by the absolute focus of the Minister of Education towards structured literacy and structured maths, structured education amongst many kura and schools throughout this country. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: We’re going to hear the answer again, and the House is going to be silent for the whole of the answer.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: My view is that the Māori-Crown relationship has been strengthened by the number of tamariki Māori—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, just a moment. If there are noises coming from the gallery, the gallery will be cleared. [Interruption] We’re just going to hear the answer in silence from both the House and the gallery.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There are a number of matters that I believe have strengthened the Māori-Crown relationship. For example, the recent resolution between three Kurahaupō iwi and the Crown in relation to the Woodbourne airport redress. For example, the additional $50 million that has been given to Te Matatini to further our commitment to culture and language. For example, the structured literacy and structured maths efforts that the Minister of Education, Minister Stanford, has engendered through the education system—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: What was the instruction to the House?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: For the gallery to be quiet.

SPEAKER: It was not the gallery at all.

Hon Simeon Brown: Point of order—

SPEAKER: The member may finish his answer first.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There are a number of matters that have strengthened the Māori-Crown relationship.

Hon Simeon Brown: Point of order, Mr Speaker. You were very clear in your instructions to the House and the gallery in relation to that question, and there were a number of offenders on the other side who continued to speak and interject, and there seems to be no consequences.

SPEAKER: That’s a very sharp observation. There were three people who were speaking during that time. I know who those people are, and that obviously will have some consequence down the track.

Hon Peeni Henare: Why has he prioritised cutting jobs at Te Arawhiti, whose primary role is to help make the Crown a better Treaty partner, when iwi leaders are speaking out against his Government’s anti-Māori agenda?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As we are all aware, this Government is very focused on delivering better public services. Any matters in relation to jobs and employment are operational matters and will be left at the appropriate operational levels.

Hon Peeni Henare: Will he commit to fronting up on the forecourt of Parliament to listen to the tens of thousands of New Zealanders who will march against his Government’s anti-Māori agenda?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The hīkoi in question is very important for many, many people. As the Minister for Māori Crown Relations, I have a number of responsibilities that I have to attend to here and in many other places throughout the country, including, for example, resolving some of the issues that were left extant by the previous Government. However, the first step is to get to the weekend.

Question No. 12—Conservation

12. to the Minister of Conservation: What recent announcements has he made about conservation matters?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I recently had the pleasure of celebrating the opening of New Zealand’s 11th Great Walk, the Tuatapere Hump Ridge Track and revealing the exemplary waharoa carved by Steve Solomon. The Hump Ridge Track is steeped in cultural and historical significance, and its Great Walk status will make it more of a draw card for both Aotearoa New Zealanders and international manuhiri. This is a great example of Te Papa Atawhai collaborating with iwi, the local Hump Ridge trust, and local government to bring a conservation project to life and bring benefits to local businesses and the economy.

Joseph Mooney: What priorities does the Minister have for conservation?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’ve established four clear priorities for conservation: targeting investment into high-value conservation domains; generating revenue and recalibrating costs so we can ensure to focus on delivering better public services with conservation; strengthening relationship with iwi, hapū, and other communities to shared goals; and reducing red and green tape to make it easier for businesses and others to undertake mahi on public conservation lands. We’re getting things done for conservation.

Suze Redmayne: How is the Department of Conservation partnering with iwi to enrich visitor experiences?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Last week, I had the pleasure of attending the blessing for the outstanding new pouwhenua of Te Ririō, the tupuna of Ngāti Hikairo. I then attended Ohakune, in the great rohe of Ruapehu and Rangitīkei, to support Ngāti Rangi, who led the opening of Te Ara Mangawhero, a new bike and walk track that links in with the New Zealand Cycle Trail aspirations, curated by the Rt Hon John Key. We also have seen the work with the people of Ngāti Hei at Mautohe Cathedral Cove, in the great electorate of Coromandel, to ensure the track is reinstated for the summer.

Joseph Mooney: What challenges are you seeing in conservation?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: A number of challenges: weather, Cyclone Gabrielle and the tens of millions of dollars of damage done to the various assets on the conservation portfolio; pandemics and epidemics, like the avian flu, not here yet but not far away, currently in South America and Antarctica; and of course, generating revenue for the conservation estate. It’s a work-on, but we’ve started with increasing the international visitor levy and are starting to consider other matters.

I declare the House in committee for the consideration of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill, the Contracts of Insurance Bill, and the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.