Oral Questions

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

Today, Statistics New Zealand released its labour market statistics for the September quarter. This release includes information from the household labour force survey, which looks at people’s labour force status, and the quarterly employment survey, which captures earnings, paid hours, and jobs. The household labour force survey showed that the unemployment rate increased from 4.6 to 4.8 percent in the quarter, and the quarterly employment survey showed that average hourly earnings increased 3.9 percent over the previous year.

Ryan Hamilton: Why is unemployment rising?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Unemployment is rising and has been rising since 2001 because New Zealand has been in a prolonged recession, with monetary tightening used to drive high inflation out of the economy. Sadly, recessions have a human cost. My heart goes out to people who’ve lost their jobs and who are struggling to enter the labour market. Rising unemployment is a reminder of how letting inflation get a grip on the economy is so damaging.

Ryan Hamilton: Was the increase in the unemployment rate as much as expected?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. The increase from 4.6 percent to 4.8 percent was lower than forecasters had been predicting. In its August Monetary Policy Statement, the Reserve Bank had forecast 5 percent unemployment and the Treasury had forecast 5.2 percent in the Budget update in May. To give some historical context, I would also point out to members that over the last 15 years, the average unemployment rate in New Zealand has been 5 percent.

Ryan Hamilton: What is the outlook for unemployment?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Today’s results reflect where we are in the economic cycle. Typically, when the economy starts underperforming, the unemployment rate is slow to rise. Then when the economy starts to pick up, it can be slow to fall. In other words, unemployment is a lagging indicator. Now, there are clear indications that the economy has turned upwards, but even so, I would expect the unemployment rate to rise a bit further before beginning to fall. In the August Monetary Policy Statement, for example, the Reserve Bank was forecasting the unemployment rate to rise to a peak of 5.4 percent early next year, then steadily decline.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, especially our efforts to rebuild New Zealand’s economy and to support Kiwis with the cost of living. In the last year, wage growth has outpaced the cost of living in the first year of our new Government—compare that to the 13 quarters in a row under Labour, where wages grew slower than inflation. That wage growth comes on top of the cost of living support that our Government has delivered for Kiwis, through tax relief, increases to Working for Families, and FamilyBoost to support Kiwis with the cost of childcare. There’s still a lot more to do, which is why we’re focused on unleashing investment and clearing away red tape, and making sure that we can rebuild the economy and lift incomes for all New Zealanders.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement, “The Government has no plan, and never has had plans, to amend or revise the Treaty, or the Treaty settlements we have all worked so very hard together to achieve.”; if so, how does he reconcile that with the introduction tomorrow of a Government bill that completely rewrites the understanding of the Treaty upon which those settlements have been based?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question, yes. As I have explained in this House before, it is Government policy to support this bill to first reading. It is also Government policy to give parties a free vote at the second reading. The National Party, which I lead, will not be supporting it. The only way this bill will become law is if the Opposition parties do support it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Government received any advice indicating that the Treaty principles bill could undermine the full and final nature of Treaty settlements already concluded; if so, what was the nature of that advice?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I haven’t seen that advice, but what I would say is that the Treaty is not changing and Treaty settlements are not changing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does the Government believe that the principle of active protection, which places upon the Crown a positive duty to protect Māori interests and taonga, should be extinguished by an Act of Parliament?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, I think I’ve been very consistent on this point: our coalition Government has a policy to support this bill at the first reading, but the parties are then free to support it or not support it at the second reading. The National Party won’t be supporting it. The only way this bill becomes a law is if the parties in the Opposition support it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Government is introducing a Government bill. I’m asking the Prime Minister about the Government’s policy intention, not what the Government’s parties may wish to do subsequent to that. By introducing a Government piece of legislation, the Government, of which the member is still the Prime Minister—as far as I know—is responsible. To say, “Oh, well, we’re not going to support it later on down the track.” can’t be an acceptable answer when he’s being asked a question about a bill that the Government is currently introducing.

SPEAKER: Well, there are a number of ways that you can get into that; it’s not for me to start making those sort of judgments. I would ask the Prime Minister, if he wishes to have another look at it—ask the question again, actually, so I can make a better assessment of where it’s at.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does the Government believe that the principle of active protection, which places upon the Crown a positive duty to protect Māori interests and taonga, should be extinguished by an Act of Parliament?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it is Government policy to support this bill to first reading. That’s what we’re doing. It is also Government policy for the parties in the coalition Government to be free to support it or not support it in the second reading.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has confirmed that the Government are supporting the bill as introduced. I am asking him a question about the provisions in the bill, which he has indicated the Government is introducing and supporting. I don’t think saying that the Government’s supporting a bill that it introduces negates the fact that he should then answer questions on what the bill actually does.

SPEAKER: I’m just racking my head for a minute, trying to think of previous situations. I can think of one around superannuation way back at the beginning of MMP, where exactly that position was taken and accepted by the arrangements in the House.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order.

SPEAKER: If it’s something new.

Hon Shane Jones: Highly likely.

SPEAKER: Well, let’s see, but you’ve got to be absolutely certain.

Hon Shane Jones: Sir, the Prime Minister is clarifying, as other Governments have done so, that policy is not static; policy is dynamic. For the purposes of this bill, the policy will be agreed to the point of introduction. But to suggest that it represents the static form of policy is wrong, and you should have ruled accordingly.

SPEAKER: That actually wasn’t a point of order; you’re giving us a lecture on how Parliament should work—useful, but not exactly a point of order.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The fact remains that when the Government introduces a bill to the House, even if they’re indicating that they don’t intend to progress it all the way through the process, they still have to answer questions on that bill. The Prime Minister and the Ministers concerned still have an accountability to the House to explain to the House and to answer questions in the House about the effect of the bill, if it was passed. Otherwise, why would it be introduced as a Government bill? My question to the Prime Minister is about the effect of the legislation. It’s not about whether the Government intends to support it further or not; it’s about the effect of the legislation as being introduced by the Government.

SPEAKER: What you are highlighting here is, in my opinion, a collision between the MMP-style Government that New Zealand now has and the Westminster-style of Government, which is the mechanism for how government is delivered. But I will ask the Prime Minister to make a further comment.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, the only comment I’d add is that the bill hasn’t been introduced to the Parliament.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When the Treaty principles bill states that the rights of Māori “differ from the rights that everyone has a reasonable expectation to enjoy only when they are specified in legislation, Treaty settlements, or other agreements with the Crown”, is it the Government’s intention that the Treaty itself fall within the definition of “other agreement with the Crown”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The bill has not been lodged.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That can’t be a legitimate explanation. The Government has made this decision. There’s a Cabinet minute of it which has been publicly released—I’ve quoted directly from the Cabinet minute. It’s therefore legitimate for the Prime Minister to be asked and therefore answer the question.

SPEAKER: That would assume that the bill that’s going to be introduced is the same bill.

Hon Simeon Brown: The question was “when the bill says X”—the bill has not yet been lodged and therefore the question was addressed adequately by the Prime Minister.

SPEAKER: Yeah, it doesn’t fully obfuscate ministerial responsibility.

Hon David Seymour: Well, I was just going to say if the leader of the Labour Party would like to put his questions to the Minister responsible, I’m right here but I don’t see any questions.

SPEAKER: Yeah, good. That’s a very kind offer.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Mr Speaker, I wonder whether you could allow me to reword the question, seeing as the Prime Minister refused to answer it.

SPEAKER: I will.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When the Cabinet agreed to the introduction of a bill that states that the rights of Māori “differ from the rights … everyone else has a reasonable expectation to enjoy only when they are specified in legislation, Treaty settlements, or other agreements with the Crown.”, was it the Government’s intention that the Treaty itself fall within the definition of “other agreement with the Crown”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said in my earlier answers, the first position I’ll make is that it is Government policy to support this bill to first reading. It is also Government policy that parties are free to vote at the second reading. The National Party will not be supporting it, and it won’t become law unless the Opposition parties do so.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I think I can anticipate the point of order, but make it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I didn’t ask him any question about the bill as potentially introduced. I asked him a question about a decision that the Cabinet has taken, the minute of which has now been publicly released, and I asked him about the Cabinet’s intention in making that decision.

SPEAKER: Does the Prime Minister want to respond to that?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I said it is Government policy to support this bill to first reading.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m happy to repeat the question again.

SPEAKER: No, no—you’re not accepting the answer, which is probably a reasonable answer given that Cabinet would have known at the time that it was supporting the bill that it was not going to get sufficient support to pass. That’s not unreasonable. You’re asking another question, I think, about whether or not that has implications for the Treaty itself.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I’m asking the question about the interpretation of the decision that the Cabinet has just made—

Hon Member: And agreed to—yup.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —and agreed to. That decision has been made. There is a Cabinet minute that confirms that decision. Asking the Prime Minister to explain a decision that the Cabinet has already made, where that is publicly minuted and recorded—it is not unreasonable to expect that he will answer that more than just simply saying that it’s the Government policy to support it.

SPEAKER: Well, that is an answer. And we can go around for ever and ever if that is the same question asked and the same answer given.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, point of order, Mr Speaker. It cannot be the case that the Government can make decisions and then not be willing to answer questions on the impact of the decisions that they have taken. It is their number one accountability to this House to explain the decisions that they have taken as a Government. They have taken a decision around particular definitional issues around what rights of Māori are or aren’t under the Treaty principles bill that they’re going to introduce, and I’m asking him a question specifically about that decision that they have already taken. I didn’t ask him about the passage of the bill; didn’t ask him about their intentions further down the track. I asked him about the implications of a decision that they have already taken.

SPEAKER: Ask your question again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When the Cabinet decided to support the introduction of a bill that states, “[that] the rights of Māori differ from the rights that everyone [else] has a reasonable expectation to enjoy only when they are specified in legislation, Treaty settlements, or other agreements with the Crown.”, was it the Government’s intention that the Treaty itself fall within the definition of “other agreement with the Crown”?

Hon David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, in the spirit of being helpful to the House, the member is—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, no. Sorry, points of order are heard in silence.

Hon David Seymour: It’s not that novel a concept. The member is quoting the body text of a Cabinet paper—not a recommendation, not a piece of legal drafting; the body text of a Cabinet paper. He’s actually incorrect to say that that’s what the legislation does. And when it is tabled tomorrow, I’m sure he will see that.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s very interesting, but I think the point is the question has been addressed. The Prime Minister might like to say something further?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

SPEAKER: He doesn’t want to.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister cannot possibly have answered the question. This is quite a significant issue. This is a Government piece of legislation. The Prime Minister is the Prime Minister for all Government legislation, not just the things that are inconvenient or convenient to him, and he has to be able to answer questions on all decisions the Cabinet has taken. To simply say, “Oh, well, it’s not a decision of Cabinet that we’re going to subsequently agree with further down the track.”, isn’t a legitimate answer. This is a decision that’s been taken. Asking the Prime Minister to explain it, that is his job.

SPEAKER: But it’s a simultaneous decision. And, look, I don’t want to reach for the books and start getting out a number of Speaker’s rulings from Speaker Wilson, but the fact of the matter is the question has been addressed—not satisfactorily, and that’s acknowledged inside the Speakers’ rulings that questions may not always be answered to the satisfaction of the questioner, but that doesn’t mean that we go on for ever on a particular question line.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement, “We want to work with Māori. We want to be able to partner.”; if so, how does that align with the Waitangi Tribunal’s view that the bill the Government is intending to introduce is “poorly designed, not informed by consultation with Māori, not justified by robust policy analysis, and risks destroying the very foundation of the constitutional arrangements of this country.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I would say to that member, we are wanting to work with Māori on some of the biggest challenges and opportunities this country has. You see us doing that with respect to how we’re driving immunisation rates for under-two-year-olds, partnering with Māori health organisations to do so, and think about the way that we’re working around emergency housing projects, for example. We want to improve outcomes for Māori and non-Māori and we’re going to continue to do that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister appears to have—

SPEAKER: Just a minute—I haven’t called you. Just wait for the House to settle down.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: The Prime Minister appears to have selectively ignored the substance of the question, which was a direct quote from the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal which were released yesterday.

SPEAKER: That’s right. There were multiple legs to the question; he’s answered one of those, which meets the criteria required.

Hon Shane Jones: Speaking to the point of order. Sir, we’re at the point of the House being brought into disrepute. That question was addressed. It was a comment taken from a recommendatory body. The Prime Minister addressed the question. You just articulated that that’s the threshold. To continue to relitigate that is to invite us all to break that rule. That can’t possibly uphold the standards of the House.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which Standing Order are you referring to, Shane?

SPEAKER: Thank you. Thank you for your commentary.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What message does it seem to Māori and non-Māori alike that in the same week the Government proposes to bring forward the introduction of a divisive bill that threatens our shared understanding of the nation’s founding document, his Government is also sacking 40 percent of the staff working in the agency responsible for supporting Crown-Māori relationships?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The member is conflating two separate issues that make no sense. We are making sure that we are delivering outcomes and we’re making sure we get a right-sized Public Service to do that. What we’re not prepared to do is have an 84 percent increase in spending that drove up inflation, drove up interest rates, put the economy in recession, and then lays off people from work. So we are making sure we deal with the spending; it’s not wasteful. We make sure that we’re driving down inflation, interest rates—we’re running the economy.

Question No. 3—Transport

3. to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made on the State Highway 1 Wellington improvements road of national significance?

Yesterday, I welcomed the New Zealand Transport Agency board confirming the next steps on the State Highway 1 Wellington improvements road of national significance, which our Government campaigned on to enable Wellingtonians to get where they need to go quickly and safely. The expanded package includes a second Mount Victoria Tunnel, upgrades to the Basin Reserve, and the addition of a duplicate Terrace Tunnel that will further boost productivity, reduce travel times for those travelling in their cars and on public transport.

Tim Costley: Why is the Government prioritising this project as a road of national significance?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Wellingtonians face significant congestion at peak times, and forecast population growth across the region is expected to significantly increase travel demand across the network. Without our Government’s road of national significance, the Wellington region could be looking at travel times increasing by up to 50 percent between Ngauranga and the airport within 10 years. That’s why we are prioritising this project for Wellington.

Tim Costley: What does this road of national significance mean—

SPEAKER: Just wait. The rule of being quiet applies to everyone when a question is being answered.

Tim Costley: Thank you, sir. What does this road of national significance mean for people and freight travelling through the Wellington region?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Our Government is continuing to move at pace to deliver infrastructure that will unlock economic growth, reduce travel times, and improve safety. This expanded package in Wellington will result in significant travel time savings during peak times, reducing travel times from the northern suburbs to the CBD, hospital, and airport by around 10 minutes to boost productivity and enable Wellingtonians to get where they need to go quickly and safely.

Hon Nicola Willis: What impact does the Minister think these new developments will have for the constituents of the Wellington Central, Rongotai, and Ōhāriu electorates; and has he received messages of congratulations from the representatives for those electorates?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: This project will have significant benefits both for those driving their vehicles or on public transport in and around Wellington—as I said, up to 10 minutes of travel time savings for those moving between the northern suburbs and the airport. I’ve heard silence from the other side, but I must say: I did see some welcoming statements from Nicola Willis making very positive remarks about this project.

Tim Costley: Can the Minister tell us how this road of national significance will benefit public transport users?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Members in this House will be pleased to hear that by grade-separating the Basin Reserve, those travelling on the No. 1 bus between Island Bay and the railway station are forecast to save nine minutes during morning peak times on their way to work and school. Additionally, those travelling on the No. 2 bus between Miramar and the CBD will notice a saving of 11 minutes on their journeys. Our Government is committed to delivering the infrastructure we need to reduce congestion and support economic growth.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

4. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “The Treaty is our past, present and future. It has shaped the country we have become, and the obligations it imposes on both sides will always be with us”; if so, why is he supporting a bill that the Waitangi Tribunal findings state, “If the Bill remained on the statute book for a considerable time or was never repealed, it could mean the end of the Treaty/te Tiriti”?

Yes, in answer to the first part of the question. As I’ve said before, we will support the bill at first reading and then we’ll vote against it at second reading. The only reason that bill will remain on the statute book for a considerable time is if the Opposition votes for it, because National won’t be doing so.

Teanau Tuiono: How does he justify his support for the introduction of the Treaty principles bill in light of the Waitangi Tribunal’s finding that, and I quote, “If the bill were to be enacted, it would be the worst, most comprehensive breach of the Treaty in modern times.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said in my answer, it’s not going to be enacted.

Teanau Tuiono: Is it not more important for the Prime Minister of Aotearoa New Zealand to honour the founding agreement of our nation than to honour a one-term coalition Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said before, the reality is we are in an MMP environment with a coalition Government. That is the reality of it. I’m sure the ACT Party didn’t get everything they wanted. The National Party didn’t get everything they wanted; we came to a compromise. This is the way that we’re handling it. We will support it at first reading but we’re free not to support it at second reading, and that’s what we’ll do. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: That sort of general barracking has just got to stop.

Teanau Tuiono: How does he respond to the finding of the Waitangi Tribunal that, and I quote, “the [Treaty principles bill] would end the Treaty partnership and any formal relationship between the Crown and Māori” and “could have the impact of undoing everything that [has] been achieved for Māori in the past 40 years”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, if the Opposition parties at second reading vote against it like the National Party will, it won’t become law.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has no responsibility whatsoever for how the Opposition parties vote and yet has continued to refer to that in his answers today. He does, as Prime Minister, have responsibility for the decisions that his Government has taken. This is another example of a member asking a question of the Prime Minister about decisions that his Government has taken, which he has chosen to refer to decisions the Opposition might take in his answer. He should answer for the Government.

SPEAKER: And he has done. He said a number of times that it is the policy of the Government. The fact that the policy might be to vote for a first reading and not for any more, none the less, that is the policy. And the other question that is being asked is covered off, I think, by the problem you’ve got with the structures we have under MMP, where you form a Government from parties that will have different views, make concessions to one another, which will mean that there’ll be some bills supported some way through the House that may not be supported through the rest. Now, if you want to turn around and say—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Further point of order—

SPEAKER: Hang on. If you want to turn around and say that somehow I should rule that the provisions of the MMP electoral system do not apply inside this House, that would be an utter nonsense.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m not arguing that at all. I’m asking you to enforce the rules that say that the Government needs to answer questions about decisions it’s taken. The Prime Minister’s repeatedly said the Government has taken the decision to support the bill at first reading. Therefore, asking him to answer questions about the implications of that decision, about a bill that they have indicated they are supporting at first reading, is not asking him in any way to abrogate or to bypass the MMP party system; it’s asking him to explain the implications of a decision that they have taken to support.

SPEAKER: He did answer in a way that is a speculation about what might happen. He has previously said quite clearly: supporting it to the first reading, not any further. Now, that can’t be clearer when you’re asking for the Prime Minister to speculate about a Waitangi Tribunal position—what would happen if this was on the statute book for a longer time. The only way that could happen would be if other parties in this House beyond his own and those who’ve declared at second reading they’re against it voted for it. I don’t think it’s an unreasonable answer.

Teanau Tuiono: How does he respond to the finding of the Waitangi Tribunal that, “At present, the progressing of the bill is having serious impacts on the relationship but the bill if enacted would kill that relationship.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said, the bill will not be enacted if parties in the Opposition vote against it.

Teanau Tuiono: Is having a six-month-long process that risks dividing our nation with the possibility of misinformation thriving a price worth having to maintain his coalition?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, we are following process. We are making sure the bill will be supported at first reading. There will be a six-month select committee process. That is a chance for the public to engage with the process; then it will come back to this House for a second reading, at which point it’ll be voted down.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will the Government support a shortened select committee process to save the significant expense that the House will go to in having the bill at select committee for six months, given the Government has already determined it’s going to fail at second reading?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, but I think it is a bit rich from that member to raise expense when he and that member spent $1.2 billion on three waters and it went nowhere.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement that “it is a priority to support New Zealanders into work”; if so, how many additional people have become unemployed since she took office?

I stand by my full statement from August, which was in answer to a question from the member: “Yes, it is a priority to support New Zealanders into work, and today’s unemployment statistic is yet another reminder of how letting inflation get a grip on the economy was so damaging.” That is equally true today, as I said in reply to question No. 1. To the second point: the number of people unemployed in New Zealand has been rising steadily since 2021. Rising unemployment is not a new phenomenon. Up until the December quarter of 2023—that is, the final two years of the last Government—the number of people unemployed rose by 30,000. Since then, the number has risen by 25,000.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does her heart go out to the 25,000 additional people since she took office who are now unemployed and where her personal income tax changes will have no effect as they have no job?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: To the first part of the question: yes. To the second part of the question: the member is operating under a misapprehension that those unemployed today would stay in unemployment for the rest of the year. In fact, anyone with knowledge of the labour market would tell you that people come in and out of unemployment, and I expect that a large number of New Zealanders who do lose their jobs will then get jobs in which they will be paying lower taxes so they will have more money in their bank accounts, and that will be a good thing.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does her heart go out to the agriculture, forestry, and fishing sector, that is down 12,000 jobs; the manufacturing sector, that is down 9,000 jobs; and the construction sector, that is down 12,000 jobs since the election?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, it absolutely does, and my heart also goes out to every farmer who in these past six years had a Government that was actively working against them, tying them up in red tape, and blaming them for the environmental challenges of our country rather than thanking them for putting food on the tables, bringing in export receipts, and growing this economy.

Reuben Davidson: How is she supporting TVNZ workers who have been informed today that their jobs are on the line, the latest local media casualties in light of zero action by this Government to support the local media sector?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I reject many of the characterisations in that question. Of course, the employment decisions of TVNZ are operational decisions that are necessarily at arm’s length from the Minister. I know that members opposite have a bit of a fraught history when it comes to inappropriate interventions in what should be independent matters, but if he wants to rewrite the rule book on that, I invite him to give us his ideas because they sound like they might be quite silly.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does her heart go out to Pacific people, who face a 9.9 percent unemployment rate; and in particular Pacific youth aged 15 to 24, where one in four are now unemployed?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, it does, and that is why every day we are working to rebuild this economy, to bring inflation down so interest rates can drop, so businesses can have the confidence to invest and create new jobs, so that we are driving higher education standards, so we can have a more productive economy where more Pacific people have access to good future employment and education, and why, for example, we are doing things like introducing fast-track consenting so that we can create more jobs on new developments faster, rather than tying up projects in the Environment Court. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I know it’s a Wednesday and everyone’s very excited about all sorts of events happening in other parts of the world. Calm it.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does her heart go out to the thousands of public servants and Government service providers that have lost their jobs as a result of her Public Service cuts that have been described by one commentator as worse than Ruth Richardson?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, here’s what I’d say to that commentator: in the year of 2024 to 2024, the number of public servants increased by 421. It is true that the number of public servants has reduced from its peak in December 2023, but I would say this: no Government, no country, can live beyond its means indefinitely. If the position of that member remains that the way to restore the strength of this economy is to hire more public servants in the back office, then she should go out and tell New Zealand that, because I tell you this: New Zealanders know better. They want front-line services, they want investment in productive growth, they want services that deliver, and that demonstrably was not delivered by a Government that lived beyond its means, increased the number of public servants, but didn’t increase the results they delivered.

Hon David Seymour: Can the finance Minister relate to Ruth Richardson, who also inherited a set of books from a spendthrift Labour Government along with inflexible labour law initiatives that she had to reform?

SPEAKER: Only one part of that question was in order, but go—say something.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: If I could make a couple of remarks, there are two reflections—

SPEAKER: One would be enough, I think.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: There is a reflection that I have often had recourse to, which is how difficult it is when people complain about the state of the house after the massive party that they had, the extent of the hangover, and complain about how quickly we’re cleaning up the mess.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order.

SPEAKER: A point of order, the Rt Hon Winston—the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: You should withdraw and apologise for that, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I do, immediately.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How is it possibly in order for that question to be in order and for the Minister of Finance to take a patsy question from a Government Minister to basically attack the Opposition, but the Government isn’t willing to answer questions for the decision it itself has taken? The Government has no responsibility for the previous Government. It has no responsibility, actually, for Ruth Richardson, but it does have a responsibility to answer questions about its own decisions, which so far today it seems to be refusing to do.

SPEAKER: Yeah, except that the question initially asked for a comparison—or was there a comparison between the former finance Minister and the current finance Minister, with a suggestion that one was bad and the other was worse, so some response is obviously going to come from that. The question that was asked by David Seymour was: does she relate to the former Minister? I said at the time that I thought there was only a very small part of that that was in order, and I think we will now move on.

Question No. 6—Education

6. to the Minister of Education: What further update can she provide about her Make it Count action plan?

As part of our action plan, last week I announced a $2.5 million plan to support secondary school students working towards their NCEA literacy and numeracy co-requisite requirements. I’m pleased to share that, from this term, 160 schools from across the country will be involved, with up to 10,000 students. On Monday, I announced our targeted maths programme for years 7 and 8 students, and I’m pleased to share that, as of today, 374,521 primary and intermediate school students will benefit from maths workbooks and teacher guides, an increase of almost 5,000 students from yesterday. This is so much more than just a stationery update: these high-quality, curriculum-aligned resources will help teachers and lift student achievement.

SPEAKER: I realise that the Ministry of Education people who may have given advice on the structure of the question are pretty keen on very long answers, but they’re not particularly helpful for the House.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What feedback has she heard from principals on her Make it Count action plan?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Feedback from schools has been positive. I’m delighted that school principals already want to get involved. One wrote, “I would welcome the opportunity to be part of this trial and further develop the knowledge and skills to make a better difference to this cohort of learners. We strongly desire this cohort to enter secondary school with confidence in themselves as learners and set a positive trajectory for future learning.”

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What feedback has she received from the sector about other elements of the maths action plan?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Last week, I was delighted to release the new maths curriculum, which is a knowledge-rich curriculum and sets out a structured, evidence-informed approach based on the science of learning. In response, The Education Hub founder, Dr Nina Hood, said, “I think the Minister has identified a number of key challenges that we have in the system and is putting in place steps to address those. It’s just making sure that you’re taught in the way that builds up knowledge sequentially.” This Government is ensuring that our teachers are supported to deliver lessons that cover what students need to learn and when they need to learn it.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What feedback has she received from education experts?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Massey University Distinguished Professor Gavin Martin described our newly released math curriculum as a world-class document. He gave a big shoutout to this Government for all of the hard work and, in particular, to our maths curriculum writers, including Audrey Tan. This Government has an unrelenting focus on lifting student achievement and closing the equity gap in our education system so all children are equipped with what they need to succeed.

Question No. 7—Health

7. to the Associate Minister of Health: Does he agree with Dr Shane Reti when he said, “We are sending out a signal to the people with myeloma and the people with leukaemia, we understand, we haven’t forgotten you”; if so, what actions has he taken to deliver on that following receipt of the Cancer Control Agency’s report, titled: Understanding Blood Cancer Medicine Availability in Aotearoa New Zealand?

In answer to the first part of the question: yes, absolutely. I happen to have known Dr Reti for over 10 years. We’re both from Whangārei, where, in fact, he worked with my mum, and he’s one of the kindest and smartest people I know in politics. So I don’t doubt for a moment his sincerity when he says that he is there to help people with cancer, as we all should be. In answer to the second part of the question: while the report’s publication is relatively recent, this Government has initially increased the budget for Pharmac over four years by $1.774 billion to fill in a fiscal hole left by the previous Government—when the member asking the question was the Minister responsible. Subsequent to that, we have increased funding by a further $604 million. Now, it’s not Dr Reti’s responsibility to choose which drugs to buy, or any politician for that matter, but what has happened—and I can tell you, when you go down to Pharmac and you hear from the people there, people work for Pharmac because they love buying medicines for Kiwis. They are so busy funding new medicines for people with all manner of cancers, and I hope that soon they will fund more medicines for people with blood cancers.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Will he assure blood cancer patients that all nine medicines identified in the report as offering significant clinical benefits but currently unfunded, or their equivalent, can be funded from the extra investment in Pharmac that he just cited?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The member knows very well, because she’s had this job, that if a Minister is able to ensure that a particular medicine will be funded, then Pharmac is not actually independent. Therefore, I can’t stand here and say that Pharmac will fund a particular medicine, but what I can say is that they have never had more money to fund medicines in the history of this country. The amount of money that’s going into it is exceptional and it’s already having its effects felt by people battling cancer up and down this country.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why didn’t the Government run a process that would have given these patients with blood cancer an equal shot at the funding to patients with solid tumours when, after all, Dr Shane Reti knew about this issue before the election?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: That is precisely what the Government has done. Pharmac do not discriminate. Their goal is to secure for eligible persons maximum medical benefit from the available funding—available funding that has been dramatically increased under this Government. And let me just say it one more time for that member, in case she’s forgotten anything or didn’t know when she was the Minister of Health herself: the biggest difference that a Minister of Health or a Government or a Minister of Finance or a Minister responsible for Pharmac can do is provide more money for the people at Pharmac to buy more medicines for Kiwis. And on that simple measure it is not just 1-nil, it’s 1,000,000-nil.

Hon Dr Shane Reti: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: The Hon Shane Reti.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Oh! He wants to be in this question now.

SPEAKER: Hang on, just—please.

Hon Dr Shane Reti: Can the member confirm that up to four blood cancer medicines have recently been funded by Pharmac?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes, I most certainly can, and that is an example of the decisions that Pharmac is making in order to ensure the money is put to the best possible use. It benefits people with solid tumours; it benefits people with blood cancers; but it also benefits people, for example, with type 1 diabetes, who now have continuous glucose monitors funded by the taxpayer through Pharmac. Right across the board, this Government is improving access to medicines at a level never before seen in this country.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: In light of his previous answers, am I to take it that people with blood cancers do not have an assurance that their cancer medicines will be funded, but solid tumour patients do, or do solid tumours also have no assurance that they will be funded under this initiative?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I think it’s fairly straightforward; this Government is very clear that Pharmac makes the decisions about which medicines to fund. We make the decisions about how much funding they receive, and the member knows this. What the Government has done is ensure, in line with—

SPEAKER: Just stop there. We’ll hear the rest of this in absolute silence.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a very serious matter for a lot of New Zealanders, as I’m sure nearly every member of this House who’s known someone with cancer will know. As I was saying, what the Government has done, in line with pre-election commitments, is provide funding that will allow a list of drugs, or their equivalents, to be funded. That commitment has been undertaken. From now on, we do everything we can to increase the amount of funding for Pharmac, in order that more medicines can be bought. For example, I’m happy to tell the House that I have asked Pharmac to be active and aggressive in showing how they, by funding more medicines, can save money right across all of society to boost the Pharmac budget even further than the current record levels, in order that more people with all types of ailments, including blood cancer, will have more chance of seeing their medicine funded sooner.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that Pharmac’s ability to deliver more cancer drugs to New Zealand cancer patients would have been made even harder if this Government had allowed the time-limited shortfall in Pharmac funding—the fiscal cliff left by the previous Government—to endure?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I remember very well meeting with that Minister, our Minister of Finance, and our meeting was scheduled to be about that shortfall. We knew that if we did nothing and carried on with the previous Government’s funding track, we would go from around $1.5 billion per year to about $1.1 billion per year. The advice I’d received from Pharmac was that Pharmac would first decide—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, everyone seems to have forgotten we’re listening to the rest of this question in silence.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Some medicines and some indications—they would have to stop new patients getting those medicines. If that didn’t save enough money to make up for the previous Government’s budgeted shortfall, then they would have to—

Hon Member: Speech!

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —actually take people off medications. You know, someone thinks it’s funny to heckle. I can tell that young member that, actually, medications for people and people losing their medications when they are often terminally ill is a very serious matter. If you wouldn’t mind listening, it would be helpful. We recognise that Pharmac would actually stop people receiving medicines they’re already prescribed; that was the advice. So our finance Minister Nicola Willis and I looked at each other at the start of the meeting and we said, “We’ve just got to do it.”, and that was, basically, the end of the meeting.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Just wait for the silence that is going to be across the House for the duration of this question.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Has Shane Reti broken his promise to blood cancer patients that they will not be forgotten, when it is actually true that they are an afterthought in this policy?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: All I’m going to say to that is that there is a line in opposition politics between advocating and exploiting somebody, and I think what that member just did crossed that line.

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he believe his coalition agreement with ACT has more mana and integrity than Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I’ve explained, we are in a coalition Government. We are supporting, as a Government, this bill to first reading, and beyond that, it’ll be up to each individual party as to whether it ultimately goes through and becomes law.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order. The question was: “Does he believe his agreement with ACT has more mana and integrity than Te Tiriti o Waitangi?” I didn’t hear him address or even answer remotely close to that question.

SPEAKER: Well, you could also argue that he’s got no particular responsibility for asserting mana to one document or the other. The Prime Minister might like to make another comment on it.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m very clear that the Treaty of Waitangi has obligations on both Crown and iwi, and we will continue to uphold those under law.

Rawiri Waititi: How can tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti voters have confidence in a Prime Minister who is willing to sponsor a select committee process which will become a platform for racism and misinformation, given the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal, “The Māori-Crown relationship has already been damaged and would be further damaged, including by the select committee process which we fear could become a platform for racism and misinformation that would prejudice Māori”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: They can have confidence because they’ve got a Government that’s here to advance outcomes for Māori and non-Māori. And what I’d say to you is that when we have 12 percent of Māori students at year 8—thank you, Labour Government—we have a plan to deal with that. When we can move 1,500 children, many of them Māori, out of emergency housing accommodation in motels and into permanent, proper homes, that’s great; that’s a fantastic outcome. It’s better than what that Government did for six years, with an absolute majority for the last three, and did so very little. It’s fantastic that we are working incredibly well with Māori health organisations to improve immunisation rates for under-two-year-olds. That’s about outcomes and getting things done for Māori and non-Māori.

SPEAKER: I just make the comment that personal reflections aren’t provided for—in fact, they’re specifically provided against in the Standing Orders, whether they are by way of interjection or in debate. Members need to remember that.

Rawiri Waititi: How can he sleep at night knowing that the violence of the Treaty principles bill is going to have a discriminatory intergenerational impact on our mokopuna?

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

Rawiri Waititi: How many apologies is the State willing to make while they continue to inflict violence and abuse on our people, whilst continuously breaching Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I disagree with the characterisation of that statement. This is a Government that is here to advance and improve outcomes for Māori. And the sad reality is that under the previous administration, despite a much-vaunted Māori caucus, very little was achieved for Māori.

Rawiri Waititi: How can he stand in this House and support a bill which the Waitangi Tribunal has described as “the worst”—let me emphasise: “the worst”—“most comprehensive breach of the Treaty/te Tiriti in modern times”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’re not supporting the bill in second reading.

Question No. 9—Health

9. to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he seen about new funding for medicines in New Zealand?

Thank you very much for the question. A great many—in particular, the $1.774 billion boost in the Budget this year, followed by a further $600 million over the next four years to expand access. That means that the total budget over four years is $6.294 billion, or nearly $1.6 billion a year averaged over the four years. This is far more than has been spent by Pharmac on medicines in history. In fact, it’s about 60 percent more than the billion or so that it was only a few short years ago. At present, there are 11 cancer medicines being funded, nine that are having feedback considered, for a total of 20; 21 non-cancer medicines in total are either funded, being considered, or consulted on, for a total of 41 medicines that are now being either funded, considered feedback, or consulted on as a result of that funding uplift.

SPEAKER: I’ll just point out that the question did ask about recent announcements. It’s fair enough, but perhaps you don’t need to recite the entire announcement rather than the answer.

Todd Stephenson: Has he seen any specific announcements to respond to the shortages of oestradiol?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Mr Speaker, I just thought it was my duty to be candid to the House, but I can be briefer, if you’d like. In terms of oestradiol, this has been a major pain point for women up and down New Zealand. Due to recent developments in research around the relationships between hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer, global demand has nearly tripled for hormone replacement therapies. This has led to a worldwide shortage and one that has affected New Zealand’s women as well. However, I’m proud to say that Pharmac has been agile and really quite active in getting out and finding supply, as well as getting new medicines funded in order to alleviate the shortage. As of 1 November, oestradiol gel, a topical hormone treatment, is now funded, and it’s estimated that 18,000 women will benefit from it in the first year. I’m well aware of the stress that this has caused, from the correspondence I’ve received; however, I’m pleased to say that this problem is at least some way to being resolved, thanks to the actions of Pharmac.

Todd Stephenson: Has he seen any announcements that will support cancer patients?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes, I most certainly have, and I referred to them earlier. What I would say is that, right across the world, the rate of progress in creating new treatments for cancer is truly astonishing. As someone who believes soundly in science, I am hesitant to describe it as a miracle, but what is presently happening and the number of cancer treatments coming online could be described as that, if anything was to be. This Government’s commitment is to keep finding ways to fund more and more of them to increase New Zealanders’ survivability.

Question No. 10—Police

10. to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by the statement in his 20 September 2024 letter to the chair of the Regulations Review Committee regarding the Arms (Shooting Clubs—Content of Annual Reports) Amendment Regulations 2024, “I am comfortable that this technical change would not have negatively impacted public safety”, and does he heed Police advice on public safety?

Yes, as I said in the letter, the purpose of the amendment regulations was to remove unnecessary administrative requirements for non-pistol clubs, which are largely run by volunteers. When clubs struggle to adhere to overly burdensome requirements, they run the risk of closure. Because the safe use and education about firearms in controlled environments like ranges is beneficial to public safety, it is important that regulations are workable for volunteer organisations so that this resource can remain available to the community. I would note that the Government has only made two changes to firearms law and regulations in New Zealand. This regulation change is one of those, the other being strengthening the firearms prohibition orders regime to keep guns out of the hands of gang members. Police did not provide the public safety advice specifically in relation to this administrative regulation change, but did provide advice that the firearms prohibition orders being strengthened would have significant public safety benefits.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why did he disregard Police advice provided to him on 6 June on the proposed changes to shooting clubs that made numerous references to the public safety risks associated with reducing the reporting obligations on shooting clubs?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I made a decision to make a small technical change, that Cabinet supported, that meant that the requirements for reporting was not duplicated. That removed some of the burden to these voluntary organisations because we want these ranges to remain open, because we want people to have safe spaces where they learn firearms safety, and that is done at ranges.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why did he tell Parliament on 19 September that gang members were not using gun ranges to practise their shooting skills, when police advised him twice, on 30 April and again on 22 July, specifically of that risk?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Because gang members have not been getting access to gun ranges to practice for firearms.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Which is correct: his answer to question No. 9 on 19 September or the two briefings released under the Official Information Act in April and July from police; if it is the latter, will he correct his answer in Parliament?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: What is accurate is that I’ve had no advice from Police to say that gang members are using gun ranges to practice with firearms.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order. I seek leave to table a document received under the Official Information Act that is not publicly available that stipulates police advising the Minister of Police that there is a risk, and that gang members are using gun ranges to practice their shooting skills.

SPEAKER: Why is that not publicly available?

Hon Ginny Andersen: It was received under the Official Information Act and provided to me.

SPEAKER: It hasn’t been released anywhere else?

Hon Ginny Andersen: No.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Can I just say, that last question seemed a long way from the primary.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why did he support proposals to weaken police inspection powers over gun ranges when Police had clearly advised him of the risks of unlicensed shooters such as gang members being allowed on gun ranges by licensed firearm owners?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I reiterate again that the change that was made in the regulation was minor in nature, it was technical, and it was to remove some of the burden on our volunteers that are actually running these ranges. The reason why we did it quickly is because they were coming up to annual general meeting season and we wanted to have confidence that these ranges remained open because there is a big public safety issue around making sure that people do have access to these ranges. Otherwise, what happens is you run the risk that people start looking for alternative locations that aren’t registered ranges, and that actually increases the risk to the public.

Hon Nicole McKee: Is the Minister confident that by supporting clubs and ranges, we are supporting safer communities?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Absolutely. I mean, the reality of it is—and many of the member’s colleagues use ranges—that they are the safe place to use firearms. That is where firearm safety is delivered. It is where firearms use is monitored. The best thing we can do about public safety is to ensure that these ranges, which are largely run by volunteers, are given the support they need to keep those open.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why is he risking public safety and the safety of front-line police officers by enabling a gun lobbyist to weaken our firearm regulations when he has been specifically advised by Police that gang members are using gun ranges?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I find it a bit rich from a previous police Minister who oversaw some of the worst violence and growth in violence that we’ve seen in our country. And I will stand by our reputation any day in terms of prioritising public safety and doing everything that we can to continue to make sure that we increase public safety.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. I’d ask that you reflect, in the context of Speakers’ rulings 190, 191, and 192, about the tenor of a host of the questions today. It is permissible in supplementary questions for people to draw on reports or take quotes, but we’ve had a plethora today of quotes taken grossly out of context in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi, quite apart from the inflammatory language that comes from that report—and that’s a matter for the authors of that Waitangi Tribunal report. But there are standards and there are parameters around how quotes and how statements and how reports are to be treated in the House. To avoid that brings the House into disrepute and we are bordering perilously close to that today.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Can I congratulate Shane Jones on reading one page of the Standing Orders and encourage him to read the entirety of the Standing Orders because then he would find that that point of order itself violated a number of them.

SPEAKER: No, I don’t think that’s fair comment. I think if members of the House look at Speakers’ rulings 191/3 and 192/1, they’ll get a fairly good guide on how quotations should be used. In the end, these are matters for the House and they have not been ruled out.

Question No. 11—Health

11. to the Minister of Health: Is he concerned about the impacts of poor access to dental care, as outlined in this week’s report from Dental for All; if so, what steps, if any, is he taking to reduce the cost of dental care?

Yes. We know that good oral health is important for the wider health of New Zealanders. Currently, free dental care is provided to children and adolescents until the age of 18. There is also funding in place to support adults on low incomes. It’s a longstanding issue that needs very careful consideration. However, as outlined in the Government policy statement, the importance of ensuring primary and community healthcare services, including oral health services, are responsive to need remains a priority.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What does he say to almost half of New Zealanders who put off going to the dentist because of cost when he was unable to name a single initiative he has taken to reduce the cost of dental treatment?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This Government has spent $250 million approximately on oral health as a proportion of Vote Health. We’re also committed to increasing community fluoridation, which will provide community benefits. We also provide support for the toothpaste to toothbrush programme which provides care to vulnerable populations, and also to whānau of those vulnerable populations.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Will he take any actions to lower the cost of dental care, or will he allow families to go without being able to afford getting basic health care as a result of cost?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Vulnerable families have access to low-cost access dental care, including recent increases—2022, as I recall—to the emergency dental grant, which, I believe, is now called the special needs dental grant for immediate and essential treatment.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does he think low-income communities should go into debt to access dental care, or should dental care actually be part of the public healthcare system and be made free?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I’ve already expressed that low-income and vulnerable families have access to dental care, but of course we’d like to do more.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does he think the current for-profit private model that prevents people from accessing dental care when they need it is fit for purpose in Aotearoa?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I think is that if we improve the economy, we’ll then have the ability to provide a wider range of health services.

Question No. 12—Building and Construction

12. to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent announcements has the Government made about building and construction?

Among other things, we’ve recently announced the basis of a self-certification regime. The context is that we’re also looking to crack down on incompetent, careless, and unethical builders. But we know that in order to reform the building and construction sector to support more affordable homes and a stronger economy, we know that at the same time we need to provide more streamlined processes for those who are worthy of that trust.

Joseph Mooney: Why does the current system need reform?

Hon CHRIS PENK: It currently takes on average 569 days for a home to be built and consented. Amid a housing shortage that has persisted for some time, that is simply too long to wait. Currently, a single-storey home of standard dimensions might feature some 10 to 15 separate inspections. The resources of the building control system would be better spent mitigating more significant risk elsewhere.

Joseph Mooney: Who will be eligible to self-certify their own building work?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The scheme will undergo a robust consultation process, but there are two key pillars that will feature. The first is at the individual tradesperson level, such that plumbers and drainlayers will be able to self-certify their own work in the same way that electricians and gasfitters already currently can. The industry’s been calling for this for years. The second pillar is that businesses with a proven track record—which, I admit, we do need to define carefully—for example, homebuilders who build hundreds of similar homes every year, will be able to enjoy a more streamlined consent process.

Joseph Mooney: What feedback has he received on these proposals?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The feedback from the sector has largely been very positive. I do actually also want to acknowledge the constructive approach across the political aisle. We’ve enjoyed cautious support in principle, and I do want to acknowledge that, and also willingness to engage on the details, so we will be doing that. Within the sector, Greg Wallace of master plumbers has been advocating for self-certification for his members for four years. Ankit Sharma of master builders, the CEO, points out that this will enable his organisation’s members to build more affordably and efficiently. And Aidan Jury from Jennian Homes highlights the time factor as being critical to builds, including as to costs. So we’re determined to make these changes for the betterment of all Kiwi consumers.

SPEAKER: That’s—

Arena Williams: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Oh, one more.

Arena Williams: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry. Ha, ha! You might have guessed, I’m in a hurry to leave.

Arena Williams: How many tens of thousands of builders need to lose their jobs before he announces that the building sector is in crisis, given today’s confirmation that 12,000 jobs are gone under his watch, but, according to him, things are fine?

Hon CHRIS PENK: I’ve never pretended that the situation we inherited from that side of the House when they were in Government was anything like fine. We did inherit a crisis. We are moving quickly to address that in a way that will reflect great safety, affordability, and sustainability of our housing.