Oral Questions

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

The year-end financial statements for the 202324 financial year show net core Crown debt of $175 billion, which is 42.5 percent of GDP. The good news is that this is lower than the Budget forecast; the bad news is that, over the past six years, Government debt has skyrocketed. Some of this, of course, was due to COVID, but Government spending outside of COVID also increased significantly. Overall, net debt has gone from 19.4 percent of GDP to 42.5 percent, which, in dollar terms, colleagues, is an increase of $118 billion over six years, and the cost of financing that debt has also risen to $8.9 billion a year.

Dan Bidois: How much did net debt increase in the year 2023 to 2024?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Net core Crown debt at the beginning of the year was $155 billion; over the course of the year, an extra $6 billion was borrowed to cover the cash deficit from core Crown operating activities. This is what’s known as borrowing to pay for the groceries. Another $13 billion was borrowed for investments. These include capital expenditure for things like roads and schools, advances and contributions to the Superannuation Fund, and there was a $1 billion fair value movement in financial assets and liabilities. That adds up to a $20 billion increase in net debt over the year.

Dan Bidois: What are the Government’s objectives for debt?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Core Crown operating cash-flows have been negative since 2019-20, meaning that the Government has been borrowing for the groceries for five years straight, and, obviously, that is not sustainable. The debt should be used to fund investments and deal with economic shocks, not to fund operating activities. The coalition Government also has an objective to stop the rise in net debt as a percentage of GDP, put it on a downward trajectory towards 40 percent, and, eventually, keep it below that level, subject to shocks.

Dan Bidois: Will the Government need to borrow for tax relief?

Hon Members: It already has.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: This is an answer which members opposite should listen to. The Government will not need to borrow at all for tax relief—tax relief is fully funded—neither has tax relief added to inflation. Let me remind members that there were some in this House who stood up and declared that tax relief will lead to higher inflation for longer, and they must feel so embarrassed now that annual inflation is down to 2.2 percent. Don’t trust the economic forecasts of the team opposite.

Hon David Seymour: Has the Minister seen any recent reports that the debt could be approximately $860 million lower had the previous Government adopted the new Government’s model for delivering the healthy school lunch model at half the price, and, if so, does the Government have more plans to do things smarter, bring business, Government, and civil society together and deliver better results for less money?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, it is correct that the Minister is not just delivering butter chicken; he’s delivering savings too, and he reflects a sentiment that the Government is very much attached to, which is that the whole reason for managing the books well is so that we can deliver better services to New Zealanders. We do not presume that doing things the way they have always been done is the best way, and we will always be on the lookout for opportunities to drive better value for money.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all of his Ministers?

Yes. In our coalition Government, we have outstanding Ministers, delivering on our ambition to rebuild the economy, to restore law and order, and to deliver better public services. I would put them up against his former and current team any day of the week, person on person, because whether it’s Nicola Willis ending the era of high inflation or high interest rates delivered under Labour, she’s getting the job done; Winston Peters, out in the world, doing the business, lifting our engagement with our fellow countries; look at Chris Bishop and the work of Simeon Brown, cracking down and getting delivery, doing the projects—not phantom projects on Post-it notes; real projects, getting it done. Erica Stanford and David Seymour are doing an awesome job getting our kids to school—novel idea: teaching them the basics well on how to read and how to write—and whether it’s Paul Goldsmith and Mark Mitchell, they are making sure we are restoring law and order with tougher sentences, cracking down on gangs and retail crime, as well. Across the Government our Ministers are getting New Zealand back on track and we’re incredibly proud of them. Again, I would just say that I’d line them up against the current Opposition front bench or the former administration any day of the week.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is it—

SPEAKER: Just before I call the member, can I just say that the general level of noise during that question was just far too much, from both sides of the House, and I am making this comment because of the amount of correspondence I get about those sorts of barrages.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is it his expectation that a Minister will inform him if they receive a complaint about their conduct as soon as that complaint is received; if not, what is his expectation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, in the case that you’re referencing, which is Andrew Bayly’s behaviour that we’ve talked about over the last day or so, he apologised to the person concerned as soon as he realised he’d caused offence. He thought he had it resolved, but he didn’t; it then did come to me.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That wasn’t the question that I asked the Prime Minister. It was a pretty straightforward question relating to his confidence in his Ministers, and it was what his expectation was about when a Minister would inform him of a complaint about the Minister’s conduct.

SPEAKER: Look, the Prime Minister might like to add beyond his thinking ahead of where the question might be going.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In terms of each case, each circumstance is different. In this case, Andrew Bayly thought he had resolved it. It wasn’t resolved, and it came back to me later. But each case and each circumstance is different.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did he ask Andrew Bayly why he thought that calling someone a loser and making an “L” sign on his forehead was funny?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I went through the account with him. He doesn’t dispute the account. He actually takes full responsibility for his actions. He acknowledged that and, importantly, apologised to the individual concerned, and he assured me it won’t happen again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked him specifically about a question as to whether or not he had questioned Andrew Bayly on a particular topic: why he thought it was funny. The Prime Minister hasn’t addressed that question in any way.

SPEAKER: Well, I think to say that he hasn’t addressed it in any way is too much. The Prime Minister may wish to add to the answer.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, I’m quite good.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was it acceptable for Andrew Bayly to deny in the House yesterday, saying that he hadn’t consumed any alcohol, and then return to the House just before 10 p.m. to correct that answer and confirm that he had?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, out of an abundance of transparency and for the avoidance of doubt, he was very clear he wanted to clarify that he had no alcohol before the interaction, as you would well know from the letter that the Leader of the Opposition would have received from the complainant. The second issue, where he did have alcohol after the interaction, was not in dispute.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Had Andrew Bayly consumed alcohol between the time when he first left the warehouse and the two occasions when he returned to the warehouse to repeatedly ask the worker to come and drink with him?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I don’t know how to be any clearer: Andrew Bayly declared yesterday, and he’s been very clear from the beginning, that he had not consumed any alcohol before he had the interaction with the individual—the first interaction. With the second interaction, he talked about going for a drink and inviting the complainant to come with him for that. He admits that he had alcohol after the interaction with the individual.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It is important that this is clear, because Andrew Bayly, in his description yesterday, denied that he had consumed any alcohol in any of the interactions he had with the worker. If he had gone off and started drinking and then come back into the warehouse, that personal explanation cannot be true, and I think it is important that the Prime Minister is very clear about that in his answer.

SPEAKER: And I think it’s important that when you take a point of order, it is related to the order. If those points that you are talking about are in dispute, there are mechanisms for you to do something about that. But I would invite the member to ask another question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: A further point of order, Mr Speaker. When a member makes a personal explanation in the House, we on this side of the House have to take them at their word; that is what the rules of this House require. Andrew Bayly came to the House to make a personal explanation correcting an answer that he had given, and we have to accept him at his word. The Prime Minister has just indicated that what Andrew Bayly said last night just before the House rose for the evening at 10 o’clock was not true. I think it is important—it is important—that the Prime Minister is very fulsome with the House about that, because otherwise he is questioning the word of a member.

SPEAKER: Well, that would be a way in which you could view it, but I would think that the series of answers potentially leads to another course of action from the member, if he chooses it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If someone declines an offer of an alcoholic drink, is it acceptable for a Government Minister to return to their worksite two further times to harass them into changing their mind?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said to the member yesterday and as I say again today, there is nothing that is acceptable about that behaviour. The Minister has come forward and acknowledged that he was completely wrong. He is mortified, he feels appalled about his behaviour, he’s apologised to the individual, he’s apologised to me, and he’s reassured that it won’t happen again, but there’s nothing that accepts that behaviour.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So had Andrew Bayly consumed any alcohol before the second and third interactions with the worker concerned?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, that member has one of his colleagues asking questions of the Minister, and I’m sure our Minister will give a very fulsome answer to the questions that are asked.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That question relates directly to the previous supplementary question that I asked the Prime Minister; he has to address that. This is a serious matter to do with the conduct of a Minister; I don’t think it’s unreasonable that the Prime Minister should answer the question.

SPEAKER: Ask the question again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Had Andrew Bayly consumed any alcohol before his second and third interactions with the worker who complained?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’ve accepted the Minister’s account where he has said that he had not consumed alcohol before the interaction. He came to the House and clarified that he had a small amount of alcohol after the interaction.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. There are three interactions with the worker. I think it’s not unreasonable to ask the Prime Minister to be clear about which of these interactions he’s referring to in his answer.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: This is a matter of chronology. The complaint is based on the so-called first offence admitted by the Minister—that’s what’s important here. What we’ve got here is someone trying to go from the first offence, on which the whole complaint was made, and then add on a whole lot of things after, as though something you did after the offence which would have had an influence on you if you’d done it before the offence, is relevant. It’s that simple.

SPEAKER: Well, I think the clarification was about what the questioning should be about. Whether or not the Opposition choose to accept that or not is for them, not for me to rule on. So I would say, in this case—what was your point of order again? I’m sorry, I got lost in that one.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: The question was very specifically about the second and third interactions that Andrew Bayly had with the worker who made the complaint. The Prime Minister, in his answer, simply referred to “the interaction” with the worker. There were three separate interactions. I think it’s not unreasonable, given the specific nature of the question—that it was about the second and the third interactions—for the Prime Minister to be clear about whether that’s what he was referring to.

SPEAKER: Yes, the Prime Minister did make the point that there are further questions coming for the Minister concerned to answer, and I think it’s not unreasonable for him to say that he should answer those questions.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question on notice is whether the Prime Minister has confidence in his Ministers, and—

SPEAKER: That’s right.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —only the Prime Minister can form that judgment. Andrew Bayly can’t form the judgment about whether the Prime Minister has confidence in him; only the Prime Minister can do that. He has given us a lengthy explanation for why he thinks he’s got confidence in all his Ministers and why they’re all wonderful—including the ones who call workers losers—but I think it’s not unreasonable for him to answer specific questions about an incident that he himself has said was completely unacceptable. We don’t know the period of time which could have elapsed between Andrew Bayly leaving the warehouse and coming back on two further occasions. So it is material as to whether or not Andrew Bayly was drinking during that time, and I think it would be unbelievable to think that, given the publicity that this has had and given the significance of the incident, the Prime Minister wouldn’t have asked him that.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s something that you can contemplate; it’s not for me to speculate on. What I would say is that you have asked questions of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has answered those questions, I think, given the information that he has to hand. The question you’re now asking about the way in which an event might have transpired is probably not easily known to the Prime Minister—he wasn’t there. So do you have another question?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Are you giving me more?

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll tell you what, because it is a serious matter—and I’m not going to deny that—yes, have a question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister: has he been mindful in his decision on this of the massive injustice done to the Hon David Parker and the Hon Dover Samuels, both of whom lost their ministries when they were utterly innocent, and their colleagues would not stand behind them?

SPEAKER: That’s an interesting reflection on the history, but, no, it’s not a question for the Prime Minister.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no, point of order, Mr Speaker. Sorry, Mr Speaker, but I’m asking about how did he come to his judgment. That is not, surely, out of order.

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll tell you what: I’m not going to get into too much trouble here if I ask the member to ask the question again in that context.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has he in his decision making been mindful of the massive injustice on occasions like this that were delivered to the Hon David Parker and the Hon Dover Samuels, both of whom were accused of being guilty when they were utterly innocent, and their colleagues would not stand behind them?

SPEAKER: OK, so there’s no responsibility for the Labour Ministers, but I think the point is made. The second point I’d just want to make is that the questions are to the Prime Minister, and pushing them off to another Minister is not appropriate in question time.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did the Prime Minister ask Andrew Bayly whether he was consuming alcohol between the first, second, and third interactions with the worker who made the complaint?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I went through the account with Andrew Bayly on Friday morning. I have assurances from the Minister there was no alcohol consumed before the first interaction. He came into the House—as you know—yesterday and confirmed that there was alcohol consumed after the second interaction.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

[Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?]

Yes, and especially our action to crack down on organised crime. It was absolutely outstanding news yesterday to see police deal a major blow—another major blow—to gang operations, this time in Ōpōtiki yesterday, with search warrants executed across the North Island. Police, as always, did an outstanding job and I want to thank them for their efforts. Twenty-eight individuals were arrested and six firearms were seized, and—more good news—later that afternoon, the gang disruption unit that was just recently stood up in the Bay of Plenty continued to target and to harass gang operations. Next month, police will get more powers to target organised crime as our gang laws take effect, ensuring we have the tools we need to combat violent crime and restore law and order.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister think that young people should be taken seriously when they say that they are not getting access to food or fresh air?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, with respect to the issue yesterday, there will be a full review. What was important is that it was safely resolved, and all 13 individuals came down off the roof.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Prime Minister, tell the House why young people at the Korowai Manaaki facility were protesting on the roof of that facility this week.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: There will be a full review in due course to understand the motivation.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has the Prime Minister directly spoken to, or spoken to anybody who has spoken directly to, the young people who were protesting on the roof of that facility this week?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yesterday morning, I had a 6.20 a.m. meeting with the acting CEO of Oranga Tamariki and also the Minister. I was very pleased to see it safely resolved, and now there’ll be a further conversation and a further review. But what I would say is that the Minister is working incredibly hard to implement Mike Bush’s nine focus areas: 40 key actions. And what’s been good to see is that while this has been disappointing—to have one roof incident this year, compared to the 15 that happened in 2023.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Was the Prime Minister aware when he made his joke about these young people not getting KFC that they were protesting about not getting access to food or fresh air?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, there’s no jokes about this; this is actually a very serious matter. When our most vulnerable and some of our most serious young offenders end up in a facility like that, it’s important that we look after them and protect them and protect the public, too.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister truly intend our country to be one that celebrates—as one of his Ministers did this week—the punishment of children?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Oh, I’d just reject the characterisation of that question outright.

Question No. 4—Health

4. to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent announcement has she made regarding funding for Hato Hone St John?

Today, the Minister for ACC and I announced that Hato Hone St John will receive over $21 million in additional funding this year to address the inflationary cost pressures. This increase follows a 32 percent increase over the last two years for emergency road ambulance service providers. Road ambulances provide critical services that New Zealanders rely on in an emergency, and this additional investment in a constrained fiscal environment demonstrates the importance of ensuring these services are adequately funded.

Tanya Unkovich: How much funding do Health New Zealand and ACC jointly provide to Hato Hone St John?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I’m advised that this $21 million increase now means that Health New Zealand and ACC will jointly provide nearly $357 million to Hato Hone St John this financial year. I’m pleased that this additional funding has meant that negotiations with Hato Hone St John’s unions have been settled. Any disruption to road ambulance services is unsettling for New Zealanders, and I know it wasn’t always easy, but settling the negotiations is a testament to the hard work put in on all sides of the negotiating table. The National - New Zealand First coalition agreement commits to meeting a greater portion of Hato Hone St John’s annual budget, and this increase is a step in the right direction.

Tanya Unkovich: Can she provide any other updates about emergency services?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Emergency services are integral to this Government’s priority of delivering better public services. It is critically important that every New Zealander knows that they can rely on highly skilled and compassionate professionals during an emergency. While I’m not able to provide any updates about funding negotiations for Wellington Free Ambulance as they are ongoing, I expect to soon make further announcements about additional investment into emergency air and road services.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement that “Parties on this side of the House are backing the workers”; if so, how does the growing number of unemployed people reflect this?

Yes, I do. I made that statement when announcing that personal income tax thresholds were rising for the first time in 14 years, letting workers keep up to $40 a fortnight more of their hard-earned income; I made that statement when announcing that the in-work tax credit, which supports low to middle income working families with children, was increasing by $50 a fortnight; and I made that statement when announcing that eligibility for the independent earner tax credit, which is for workers who don’t receive a benefit or Working for Families, was being extended from $48,000 a year to $70,000 a year of income, and parties opposite voted against it. To the second point, unemployment and inflation impact workers. The member’s party might have considered that when they led New Zealand into a cost of living crisis and a recession.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How do her tax cuts help the 143,000 unemployed people in New Zealand when they have no job?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The reason we are so fixated, on this side of the House, on better managing the economy is because we want to see New Zealanders and their families in good-paying jobs, receiving good quality Government services, and what the last Government conclusively proved over six years of economic mismanagement is that just spraying the money hose around does not deliver that. What it actually caused was pain, rising inflation, rising interest rates, and a recession at the end, which of course, in due course, means that unemployment rises. We regret the situation we have inherited, but we’re fixing it up.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How does her hundreds of millions of dollars of tax breaks for a tobacco company help the thousands of care and support workers who are waiting for pay equity?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I reject the characterisation in the first part of that question.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How does cutting back programmes like Apprenticeship Boost help retrain or get people into work?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Oh, the cheek of it! This is the party that short-changed funding for Apprenticeship Boost by creating a fiscal cliff—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has taken swipes on—this is the third question she’s taken a swipe at. She referred to a “money hose” before, and she’s having—and you’ve established well in this House that it’s not appropriate to use a question which is a straight question, albeit from the Opposition, to attack the former Government’s administration.

SPEAKER: Well, it is a straight question, and I’ll accept that, but you then have supplementaries. If it was all based on what the Minister has said—parties on this side of the House are backing workers—that would be fine, but they’re not. They’re going beyond that and are putting out circumstances that are going to end up with a political-type response.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Well, speaking to the point of order, the question—

SPEAKER: Well, no, you weren’t—I wasn’t, actually. I was trying to give you a ruling, but if you go to a new point of order, that’s good.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Well, my point is simply that the question was simply about apprenticeships, and there was no material in there inviting any response about the previous Government’s administration.

SPEAKER: Well, by saying that the Government had cut the spending, it invites an explanation, and I think you can’t deny that. You can’t just expect that there’s no response to something like that. But I will watch it. The Hon Barbara Edmonds.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Can I have another go at the answer, because I was conveying some useful information and I got cut off by the point of order.

SPEAKER: Well, yes, but I’d also advise that using answers to attack a former Government is not appropriate in the Standing Orders, and so—

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker, speaking to the point of order, I’m happy to give it a go—

SPEAKER: I’m not—I haven’t actually finished talking.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: OK, sorry. Well, I’m happy to give it a go—

SPEAKER: No, no, I still haven’t finished—

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —in another way.

SPEAKER: I still haven’t finished talking.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Sorry.

SPEAKER: So I’ll go back to what I said: using answers to attack a previous Government that is outside of the bounds of the question asked is not appropriate. So would the Minister like to continue with her answer.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: One of the areas we prioritised in the Budget this year was finding funding so that the Apprenticeship Boost scheme could be continued because we wanted to see that scheme continue, and the Budget that we were left with did not have funding for it to continue, so we prioritised funding for it.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: If she stands by her statement that parties on this side of the House are backing the workers, why did she not front to the thousands of workers on Parliament’s forecourt today, who gathered to voice their opposition to her Public Service cuts and attacks on workers’ rights?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I disagree with many of the characterisations in that question. I am pleased that I engage regularly with the Public Service Association, that I fronted their conference recently, and that they engage regularly with the Public Service Commission, and I stand by the record of this Government and am happy to talk to any worker about how we are working hard every day to deliver for them. That is the whole point.

Question No. 6—Immigration

6. to the Minister of Immigration: What recent announcement has she made about supporting high-skilled migrants and their families?

This morning, I announced that open work rights will return for partners of skilled migrants. From 2 December, partners of levels 1 to 3 accredited employer work visa holders who earn at least 80 percent of the median wage will now be able to work in any job in New Zealand with open work rights. These same rights will also be available for partners of work visa holders in levels 4 to 5 roles who are on a pathway to residence. This change supports the Government’s efforts to create a world-class immigration system which attracts and retains the skills and experience New Zealand needs to grow our economy.

Grant McCallum: Why did she make this change?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Since I’ve become the Minister, and, indeed, also while in Opposition, I received a lot of feedback about the hardship that the previous Government’s changes created for migrants and their families, including the heartbreaking stories about severe financial hardship and mental distress. One person wrote to me saying, “It is very difficult to sustain the family on one person’s income in New Zealand, and due to the conditions of my visa, I am unable to support the family financially, which is becoming very stressful, to a point whereby we are considering returning to our home country.” This is just one piece of correspondence that I have received from a number of people for whom the current settings have caused hardship and undue stress, and we’re putting it right.

Grant McCallum: What will this change mean?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: This change will provide much-needed support to migrant families by allowing partners of skilled workers to have the opportunities to be employed and make stronger connections in their communities. From December, these partners can now work for any employer and uptake any work without restrictions or unnecessary red tape. This change will ensure New Zealand is an attractive destination, and getting our work visa settings right is crucial as we rebuild the economy and get our country back on track.

Grant McCallum: What feedback has she received?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I have received overwhelmingly positive feedback—for example, “This is great news. The restrictive conditions imposed on partners of work visa holders have been tough to bear for many families since early last year. This news is going to be a huge relief for those partners who want to help contribute to the support of their family here in New Zealand but also have other responsibilities like childcare to juggle.” One wrote, “This is welcome news for many families.” This announcement today is just another step closer in getting our work visa settings right.

Question No. 7—Health

7. to the Acting Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that there is a “workforce crisis” in the health sector; if so, what is he doing to stop doctors being tied up in paperwork as Health New Zealand cuts administration and advisory staff?

Yes, because, on this side of the House, we acknowledge that there have been ongoing workforce issues. We remain committed to finding pragmatic solutions that will reduce the burden on doctors. An important step to achieve this was passing decision making on recruitment back out of Wellington to the regions. We know that the regions know their communities far better than Wellington ever could.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why has he repeatedly claimed that there is no hiring freeze in place at Health New Zealand when advice provided to him as early as April showed that there was a pause on all inflight recruitment?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: The commissioner has been very clear in his public comments: clinical front-line roles will not be cut or reduced; in fact, the intention is to strengthen them. The clinical front line, including for mental health and addiction services, is key to helping ensure faster and easier access to healthcare.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did he campaign on addressing New Zealand’s health workforce crisis, and then, after becoming Minister, proceed to halt the very recruitment that was alleviating that crisis?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Our Government has already made a record investment into health: $16.68 billion across the three Budgets. The Minister has directed the commissioner to take these appropriation steps to ensure that Health New Zealand returns to budget so that our record investment can be put to good use on the front line and the workforce.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How does he reconcile his stated intent to train a home-grown, culturally competent health workforce, with the experience of graduate nurses and midwives—many of whom are Māori—who are leaving for Australia as there aren’t enough jobs for them?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: This Government is committed to growing a culturally competent workforce, and I would point to the Minister for Mental Health, who has recently published his workforce plan for the mental health workforce, which talks about growing a representative workforce for New Zealand.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Has he discussed the workforce crisis with the people who can alleviate it—nurses, midwives, doctors, and allied health staff—or did he just chat about it with Health New Zealand leaders over $32 canapés?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, that member might like to remind herself that they refused to use the words “workforce crisis”. In fact, it was this Minister who was the first to state a workforce crisis, and that’s why the Minister is working with the professional bodies to address the workforce crisis that the last Government left us with.

Question No. 8—Police

8. to the Minister of Police: Does he agree with the Bay of Plenty district commander’s message to gangs yesterday that police “will find you and you will be held accountable for your destructive behaviour”, and, if so, why?

Yes. Yesterday, police dealt a significant blow to the Mongrel Mob Barbarians in Ōpōtiki, with the execution of over 30 search warrants across the North Island—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Any gang patches?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —as part of Operation Highwater. This resulted in 28 arrests, $800,000 worth of assets being restrained, and the seizure of firearms, drugs, and gang patches.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Ha, ha!

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I want to thank every police officer involved for their outstanding work. Yesterday was a good day for Ōpōtiki.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister offer any explanation as to why Duncan Webb thinks that’s so hilariously funny?

SPEAKER: No, that’s not a reasonable question and not conducive for order.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Using a point of order to attack another member of the House is grossly disorderly—

SPEAKER: Yes, and I’ve just made that ruling. And I’m of a mind, actually, to curtail the question. But we’ll have—

Hon Member: Ha, ha!

SPEAKER: Sorry, am I causing a bit of humour over there? I call Dana Kirkpatrick.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What harm do gangs cause in communities?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Last year, we saw the Mongrel Mob take over Ōpōtiki for days while law-abiding Kiwis couldn’t leave their homes. That is unacceptable, and I’m pleased to see police sending a clear message to that gang that it will not be tolerated. Despite being a quarter of 1 percent of the population, gangs cause 19 percent of all homicides, 25 percent of all kidnappings and abductions, and 30 percent of all drug supply offences.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Why, then, is it important to crack down hard on gangs?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Gangs peddle drugs, violence, and misery in their communities. I’ve been in Ōpōtiki and met with local iwi and hapū, the mayor and councillors, and senior gang leadership. The feedback was that they want change for their town. My hope is that with police dealing a significant blow to the Mongrel Mob in Ōpōtiki, the community can turn things around. The message is very clear: police will relentlessly pursue criminals who prey on communities. Operations like this are a chance for those communities to have the space to rebuild in a positive way.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What additional powers is the Government giving to police to go after gangs?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Operation Highwater came the day after Police stood up the gang disruption unit in the Bay of Plenty, an initiative that Police announced earlier this year and staffed out of the Government’s investment in 500 more police officers. From 21 November, the gang disruption units will be significantly powered up with the Government’s new tools to get rid of gang patches, disperse gang gatherings, and prevent known gang members consorting to commit crime.

Question No. 9—Workplace Relations and Safety

9. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she agree with the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions that “This is the most anti-worker government that we’ve seen in decades”; if not, why not?

No, I don’t agree with that statement, because I believe, in fact, the most anti-worker Government we’ve seen in decades was the previous Government. It was the previous Government that ordered vaccine mandates for workers. Never before had we seen the rights of workers across the country be eroded so swiftly. Not only did this erode workers’ freedom of choice and bodily autonomy; so many people were forced out of their jobs because the Government refused to look at other options like rapid antigen tests. Rather than listen to those affected workers, the previous Government pushed them to the margins of society. The previous Government’s legislative overreach led to ostracism and division that has hugely impacted our civil society and has had a negative impact on the employment and earnings of Kiwi individuals. This Government is delivering for all workers, including the over 85 percent who are not union members.

Camilla Belich: Does she think that abolishing fair pay agreements, bringing back fire-at-will, ordering mass public sector lay-offs, and cutting back increases to the minimum wage is taking New Zealand workers forwards or backwards?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: We need a labour market that works for business, because when it works for business, it works for workers. We need to have business confidence built back, which we know crashed under the previous Government. When we have confidence of business, we will have more and better jobs for other Kiwis in our country.

Camilla Belich: How can she expect New Zealanders to believe this Government isn’t anti-worker when she has proposed removing basic rights and protections for workers by reclassifying employees as contractors and failing to save thousands of jobs in meatworks and constructions up and down the country?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: That’s not what we’ve done. I think it’s really important that what we have achieved under this Government and what we’re committed to do is what people were asking the previous Government to do: to look at the barrier between an employee and a contractor, and clarify it. The previous Government was asked by workers and businesses to do it and failed. We are actually committed to making life easier for workers and businesses to get on with what they do, rather than trying to wheedle their way through compliance.

Camilla Belich: Who should New Zealanders believe: the Minister, who says this Government is trying to make life easier for workers, or the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions president, Richard Wagstaff, who said that this Government has lodged an all-out assault on workers’ rights? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute—just a moment. Questions are heard in silence. Ask the question again.

Camilla Belich: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Who should New Zealanders believe: the Minister, who says this Government is making life easier for workers, or the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions president, Richard Wagstaff, who says that this Government has launched an all-out assault on workers’ rights?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: They should believe this Government, because we don’t represent just the less than 15 percent of New Zealanders who are labour union members; we represent all workers. We want businesses to have confidence to employ people in our country across a range of industries, from your supermarket worker to your seafood processor, and everyone in between. We care about having the cost of living decrease by getting our inflationary pressure under control so that more people have more of their own money in their own back pocket. We care about building that business confidence so that they have more money.

Hon Willie Jackson: Is the Minister aware of any reports of employers consuming alcohol at work and then telling workers they are losers and to eff off, and, if so, what advice would she give to workers who have been subjected to this type of abuse?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I see lots of reports all the time on various sectors of our economy. However, I would just suggest that I think it’s very important that we respect all workers in New Zealand. Everybody who gets up every day, who contributes to our economy every day, and is hard-working—you know, they have my backing.

Question No. 10—Police

10. to the Minister of Police: Is he confident that bias and structural racism in the police force, as was found in the Understanding Policing Delivery report, has no influence on the conduct of police during raids in Māori communities, such as the raids in Ōpōtiki yesterday?

Yes. I totally reject the premise that there is systemic racism and bias in our police force. I want to again acknowledge the outstanding work done by our world-class police force in Ōpōtiki yesterday, giving Ōpōtiki the space to rebuild after years of dealing with the misery that gangs have inflicted on the community. I’ve been to Ōpōtiki several times and have met with local iwi and hapū, the mayor and councillors, and senior gang leadership. All of them expressed to me a strong desire for the town to take a different path than the one that it was on, and I hope that yesterday will be the circuit-breaker that Ōpōtiki needed.

Rawiri Waititi: Why was Te Whakatōhea iwi not consulted on the police raids that occurred yesterday in Ōpōtiki, despite the police informing Aotearoa during a media stand-up that iwi had been consulted? And I know this to be true because I was with iwi leadership yesterday in Christchurch.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I’m not going to talk directly to police operations, but they do have operations security around the operations that they put together. But the one thing that I would say is that they are right; it is that police are constantly working with and consulting with local iwi and hapū.

Rawiri Waititi: If this Government’s objective is to crack down on gangs, why, then, were tamariki, kaumātua, and mothers breastfeeding babies subjected to the police raids yesterday in Ōpōtiki, and now are fearful that police actions are targeted, calculated, and planned to create an unsafe environment?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, we don’t want tamariki being in a gang environment. It’s not the police officers that choose to keep weapons and drugs in the houses; it’s those gang members that choose to do that, and we know that there’s been too much intergenerational harm related to gangs in this country. We should all be motivated to addressing that, and the police’s job is to crack down on the violence and the drugs and the misery that these gangs peddle in our communities.

Rawiri Waititi: How can Te Whakatōhea have confidence that the raid in Ōpōtiki yesterday was not premeditated to coincide with te hui ā-motu in Christchurch, when Te Whakatōhea leadership was in attendance?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I’m sorry, but that’s starting to move into conspiracy theory territory. The reality of it is that I know that the member sought reassurance from the commissioner, and the commissioner gave him reassurance that that wasn’t the case. I have visited Ōpōtiki personally myself because I love Ōpōtiki. I think that it’s a beautiful provincial town in a beautiful part of the country. I don’t think it wants to be known as a gang town. I’ve met with local iwi leaders and they feel exactly the same way, and we’re all joined up, we’re all motivated, in making sure that Ōpōtiki becomes a safe community that isn’t known as a gang town and that can enjoy a strong reputation in our country.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact that the greatest victims—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, just—sorry, we’ll just wait till the whole House goes quiet.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I ask the Minister, is it not a fact that the greatest victims of gang crimes are, in fact, Māori, and particularly in Ōpōtiki?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes. Unfortunately, Māori are grossly overrepresented in victimisations, being 60 percent more likely to experience violent crime and more than twice as likely to be highly victimised, and a lot of that sits inside the gangs. That’s why we should all be motivated to try and fix the intergenerational gang harm that impacts our young people and our children. We should be trying to fix that.

SPEAKER: Rawiri Waititi.

Rawiri Waititi: Oh, one more supplementary—I do? Sorry, I miscounted. Can the Minister explain how many women, children, and kaumātua were affected by the raid yesterday when your target is gang members?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I don’t have that number to hand, but the better question is this. It is how can we stop the people that are really responsible, and those are the ones that decide to have illegal firearms, commit violent offending, deal in methamphetamine, and, by the way, use the schools to peddle their drugs, as well? Those are the questions that we should be asking—how do we deal with that—and not pointing the finger at the police and blaming them for all these problems. The police are there to make sure that communities are safe, and they’ll continue to do their job. We’ve got a world-class police force that we should be proud of.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was clear—

SPEAKER: Yes.

Rawiri Waititi: —around the amount of tamariki, kaumātua, and women who were affected by the raid yesterday, and not talking about gang activity.

SPEAKER: Yes, but he’s answered that question once already this afternoon. The second point I’d make is that he, effectively, rejected the question that was asked, and that’s a reasonable thing for a Minister to do.

Question No. 11—Small Business and Manufacturing

11. to the Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing: Does he stand by his answer to oral question No. 6 yesterday?

Yes, though I note for the avoidance of any confusion that I made a clarifying statement last night. I was asked: had I had any alcohol at the beer garden or the winery I visited that day? I took that to mean whether or not I had any alcohol prior to the incident that led to the complaint. However, for the avoidance of any doubt, after the incident and at the end of the day, I had a small wine-tasting.

Arena Williams: Had he had any alcohol before he talked with the worker on 3 October the first, second, third, or subsequent time?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I have repeated many times, and I will repeat it again in the House: I had not had any alcohol that day prior to the incident with the individual concerned.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was the precise question that was put to the Prime Minister, and, Mr Bayly, in answering that question—well, he didn’t answer the question, because the question was whether he had consumed alcohol prior to interactions on the first, second, third, or subsequent occasions, and in his response, he said “the incident”. Now, there are three incidents there at least, and so he should be very clear in his answer to a very clear and important question.

SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, the Hon Andrew Bayly.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I will be clear again. I have made it clear previously, and I reconfirm in this House, that I had not had any alcohol on that day before any interactions with the individual concerned.

Arena Williams: So is he still saying he wasn’t drinking when he asked the worker to come for a drink?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: As I’ve said before, and I’ll repeat again: I had not had any alcohol prior to any interactions with the employee concerned.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a responsibility for a Minister to answer questions that are the subject of a complaint, but it stops there. What’s happening now is this prurient interest to try and find out whether at some time later—not relevant to the complaint itself—someone had a drink. Well, that’s his business and our private business, and we should not have that sort of abandonment of respect for personal responsibility in this House. That member can’t make out her case, but she’s making it by innuendo and inference without laying out one fact in front of the House, and she should be stopped from doing so.

SPEAKER: Well, that would be a fair comment if it weren’t for the fact that a Minister is a Minister at all times, and we’re only just following through on statements that have been made to the House, including the personal statement from the Minister. Is there another question from Arena Williams?

Arena Williams: Did he tell the Prime Minister he had been drinking on 3 October after question time yesterday, or did Christopher Luxon know he’d been fudging it in interviews?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I reject the assertion of the question, and I’m sure the Prime Minister will. But I can assure the House that the Prime Minister’s office was fully aware of all the sequence of events.

SPEAKER: This is not a court and there is not a prosecution here. There are reasonable questions, but they’ve got to be reasonable.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Anybody with legal training knows that you’d never ask a question on a matter like this unless you know the answer before you’ve asked the question. What you’ve got here is a fishing expedition at a great cost to the Minister’s privacy, and it’s not warranted any longer.

Hon Willie Jackson: You’re a Minister all the time.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, you’re not.

SPEAKER: No, that is a fact: the Minister is a Minister because he has a Crown warrant all the time.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, sorry, that’s a misunderstanding.

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: With the greatest respect, sir, that is a misunderstanding. The reality is that people are entitled to a private life, and as long as it’s legal and as long as it’s above board, they have no reason at all to disclose it to this House, unless it’s part of the Standing Orders or the requirements with respect to finances and others. This is a blanket decision you’re making, and it’s wrong.

SPEAKER: No, it’s not a blanket decision I’m making—it’s not a blanket decision I’m making, at all. I agree with you that the questioning is getting to an interesting stage, but in this case, the incident, the incidents—whatever you want to call it—occurred while the Minister was on a ministerial visit, and I don’t think it’s fair to say that halfway through or partway through or towards the end of a ministerial visit, suddenly it becomes a private matter.

Arena Williams: Why are there discrepancies between what the Minister has told media in the House and what the Prime Minister has said today?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I’m not sure if there are any discrepancies. I’ve been clear about the drinking arrangements. Last night, I was absolutely crystal clear about the arrangement—that’s why I returned to the House. It wasn’t that my answer was wrong; I just wanted to make sure there was no element of people trying to construe this or misconstrue this or trying to use it for other purposes. That’s why I took the earliest opportunity to return to the House to make it clear that I had not been drinking prior to any of the interactions with the individual. But I did make it clear that at the end of the day, before I left to come home to Auckland, I had had a small wine-tasting.

Question No. 12—Environment

12. to the Minister for the Environment: Does she stand by her comment in the committee of the whole House yesterday that “I made it very explicit that this Government wants to see improvements in fresh water over time and that our Resource Management Act work will be towards that”?

Yes, this Government is committed to improving the quality of fresh water for the benefit of all New Zealanders by ensuring a sustainable and balanced approach that works towards improving environmental outcomes for waterways. The Government’s view is that the current national policy statement for fresh water has become extremely complex and expensive to implement, and, despite that, it will not deliver the outcomes for fresh water that New Zealanders would expect. This is reflected in our objectives for our reform of the Resource Management Act system, including the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM) that seeks to make it easier to get things done while safeguarding the environment and human health.

Lan Pham: Why does she expect freshwater quality to improve when she has cut funding to the freshwater improvement programme, she’s weakening or removing freshwater protections, and she’s removing the health of the water—Te Mana o te Wai—as the primary consideration in consenting decisions?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: A short pause has been called on the regional and unitary authorities in notification of their freshwater plans. The short pause is until this Government has developed the NPSFM so that the regional authorities can ensure that their plans take regard of the new NPSFM, and that is an appropriate and pragmatic and sensible thing for us to do to ensure that ratepayer money is not wasted and duplication of work does not happen. But I can assure the speaker that the good work that is going on with the various catchment groups, farmers, and other primary producers across the land, where they are fencing waterways, they are planting riparian plantings, they are improving their effluent disposal, and they are bringing about better farming practice, will continue.

Lan Pham: Is it the Minister’s view that councils, alongside communities, should not be allowed to have any ambition above the bottom-of-the-barrel baselines when setting environmental limits on freshwater pollution?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: It is my aspiration that councils and local communities will take regard of the national policy statement on fresh water when it is available to them so that they can be informed by that to ensure that their plans are workable and are not too complex and too complicated and too costly to bring about the improvements in fresh water that we all desire. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I just remind the House that questions are heard in silence.

Lan Pham: How can the Minister expect to see freshwater improvements when she is removing the ability of all democratically elected regional councils to exercise their functions to improve freshwater outcomes until the end of 2025?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: A short pause for a matter of months and a maximum of up to one year will not stop the many aspects of good work that are carrying on across the country. Unlike the Opposition, we do not think that writing something in a plan makes things happen. We understand that working collaboratively with the people on the ground—the catchment groups, the farmers, the primary producers on the ground—who do the work is the way to get things done.

Lan Pham: Is she saying, after a five-year process of Otago Regional Council updating their 20year-old plan with involvement from thousands of people, public meetings, partnership with mana whenua, and a wide variety of rural urban industry groups working towards freshwater improvement, that, actually, the Government knows better?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Again, this is a short pause to ensure that the Otago Regional Council’s freshwater plan aligns with the new NPSFM that will be in place by next year and to ensure that ratepayers’ money is not wasted, and it is deeply regrettable that the Otago Regional Council had to spend $18 million to try and interpret and meet the unworkable regulations and standards the previous Government put in place.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. We’ll take a short break to allow members to leave the House before we move to miscellaneous business.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker.

No, hang on. Let me do things right. We’ve got some very pedantic members in the House who call me on all these things, so I’ll do it absolutely right. Would some honourable member care to move that the House take note of miscellaneous business?