Oral Questions

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

Yes, and especially our action to deliver modern, reliable infrastructure for New Zealand. I was absolutely thrilled on Monday to announce—alongside the Minister of Transport, Simeon Brown—that work had started on our Government’s first road of national significance this week, which of course is the Hawke’s Bay Expressway. Roads of national significance have made a massive difference for local economies, whether that’s the Waikato Expressway or the Kāpiti Expressway, and now that’s coming to the Hawke’s Bay. The good news is that early works are starting now and that will bring forward the time of completion by 12 to 15 months, ensuring that the project is delivered faster so that Kiwis see the benefits sooner. It’s all part of our plan to rebuild the economy and get New Zealand back on track. And Mr Speaker, given the recent remarks, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the Thames Valley Swamp Foxes for their win in the Meads Cup on the weekend as well. Thank you. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: The House is just a little bit too rowdy.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does a Minister in his Government calling somebody a “loser” for working late and telling him to “Take some wine and [eff] off” not warrant any formal sanction from him as Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said publicly, I was disappointed in the Minister’s conduct. It didn’t meet my standards; it didn’t meet the standards of what we expect from Ministers. But he has subsequently genuinely apologised, acknowledged the wrong, and assured me it won’t happen again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he confident that Andrew Bayly had not consumed any alcohol when he berated an export worker for the very fact that he was working, and, if not, will he commit to removing Mr Bayly’s ministerial warrant if it’s proven that he indeed was under the influence of alcohol when he behaved inappropriately?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, the Minister accepts that his behaviour was not acceptable and he accepts the overall account of the events. I understand the member has a fellow colleague who’s asking a direct question to the Minister and I’m sure he’ll give a fulsome answer to that question on notice.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was not the question that I asked him. I asked him whether he was confident that Andrew Bayly had not consumed any alcohol and if it was proven that he had, whether he would remove his ministerial warrant.

SPEAKER: Well, if the question had been that precise it might have got a more precise answer, but Prime Minister might want to add to his answer.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I understand the Minister was not impacted by alcohol when he had the interaction with the individual in concern, but, again, the member has a colleague who’s asking a question of the Minister. I’m sure he’ll give a very fulsome account.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Had Andrew Bayly visited a brewery immediately prior to the business visit where he called a warehouse worker a “loser”, made ‘L’ signs on his forehead, and told him to “[eff] off and go home”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said, the Minister has accepted that his behaviour was unacceptable and fell short. He’s actually apologised to the person concerned. He’s apologised to me and reassured me it won’t happen again.

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

SPEAKER: Yeah—OK. I think—repeat the question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Had Andrew Bayly visited a brewery immediately prior to the business visit where he called a warehouse worker a “loser”, made ‘L’ signs on his forehead, and told him to “[eff] off and go home”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m not aware of that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. If you follow that question very carefully, it’s loaded with innuendo and it’s also confusing, because when he finished the question, you weren’t certain whether it was the first event he was talking about or the second one. A bit of straight common sense and logic would be very helpful for those of us trying to follow the question.

SPEAKER: Yeah—well, perhaps I’ve got a fuzzy logic, because I understood it quite clearly.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did Andrew Bayly inform him that a formal complaint had been made about his conduct during an official ministerial visit when the complaint was received, or did he find out when the complainant distributed the complaint more widely?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said, the Minister was—I’m notified that he’d caused insult and hurt to the person involved. He apologised immediately and thought the issue was resolved; clearly it wasn’t. The first I heard about it was on Thursday.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why didn’t Andrew Bayly apologise directly to the worker who made the complaint until the complainant raised the issue with the Prime Minister; instead, including his initial apology in a letter to the worker’s employer, thanking them for his visit?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, in that letter, when it was brought to his attention, he passed on his sincere apologies to the worker. He’s also subsequently sent a letter directly to the individual concerned, offering to meet either by telephone or in person. That of course is up to the complainant to determine whether they wish to accept that offer or not. What’s important for me is that he’s acknowledged that he got it very wrong. He’s apologised both to me and to the complainant, and, importantly, he’s given me assurances it will not happen again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How can he have confidence in Andrew Bayly if he hasn’t even asked him basic questions about exactly what happened that led to a warehouse worker feeling “degraded, embarrassed, and deeply disrespected in front of my colleagues”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as the Minister has said, and as I have said, he has acknowledged the hurt and insult that he has caused. His remarks were wrong and that’s what we have talked about and we’ve gone through that account on Friday. He has apologised and he’s assured us it won’t happen again.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. 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 unleash renewable energy through fast track. We know that New Zealand needs more renewable energy to unleash growth, to keep electricity prices down, and to ensure that we achieve our emissions targets. That’s why it’s so exciting—very exciting—that the fast-track bill includes 22 renewable energy projects enabling 3 gigawatts of generation, or about 30 percent of current capacity, for New Zealand’s grid. Those projects include seven wind farms, 10 solar farms, and five hydro schemes. The Greens say they care about climate change. We’ve heard the talk, now it’s time to walk the walk. Support the fast-track bill.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What, in the Prime Minister’s opinion, is the difference between running a company and a country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: They’re completely different things.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What, in the Prime Minister’s opinion, is the benefit for everyday New Zealanders having public ownership of things like hospitals and schools and roads and public transport, infrastructure, and a bank?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Everyday New Zealanders expect us to be able to deliver an economy that’s raising their incomes, and we are doing exactly that. They expect us to restore law and order and they also expect us to deliver better public services, particularly in health and education.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Are the Government’s choices to under-fund critical infrastructure like our hospitals, our schools, and our ferries essentially just setting them up to fail to pave the way for an eventual sell-off of these crucial assets that we all own?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The member is in a very dark and conspiratorial mood today. I just say, we have no plans to do any asset sales.

Hon David Seymour: Has the Prime Minister seen any evidence of conspiracy theories being spread in New Zealand, and, if so, what is the Government doing to dispel them?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, our Government’s very focused on what New Zealanders want us to be focused on, which is rebuilding the economy, restoring law and order, and delivering better health and education.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister as to whether he thinks it’d be in any way principled to sell a ferry that you haven’t bought yet?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we are working very hard to make sure that we get a critical piece of national infrastructure on the strait so that we can actually keep our cargo and people moving across this great country.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister today committing to not selling off or partially privatising at all any of our State-owned assets, and, if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, that is not on our agenda. What we are focused on is our quarterly action plans. We take delivery and execution very seriously, on this side of the House. It’s a coalition Government that’s getting on with the task at hand and that’s what we’re working our way through.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister commit to not selling off any current public assets?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, that is not part of our plan. Our plan is to focus on our quarter four action plan. We’re working our way through it exactly so that we deliver for New Zealanders.

Question No. 3—Finance

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

Earlier this month, Treasury released the financial statements of the Government for the year ending 30 June 2024. These showed that in 2023-24, core Crown expenses were $139 billion. That is a big number. It means core Crown expenses are 73 percent higher than they were just six years earlier. This increase in expenses is far greater than the increase in revenue over the same period. The financial statements show core Crown revenue of $133 billion in 2023-24, an increase of 54 percent.

Stuart Smith: What does this mean for the operating balances?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Core Crown expenses were $139 billion, and revenue was $133 billion. This means there was a core Crown operating deficit before gains and losses of $5.8 billion. The Government’s headline operating balance indicator—the OBEGAL—is, however, a total Crown measure, which means it also includes revenue and expenses from Crown entities and State-owned enterprises. In 2023-24, Crown entities collectively made an operating deficit that was larger than the core Crown, at $6 billion before gains and losses. In terms of sectors, this was the biggest contribution to a total Crown operating balance before gains and losses (OBEGAL) of $12.9 billion.

Stuart Smith: What is behind the operating deficit from Crown entities?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: ACC is the biggest contributor by far. In 2023-24, its deficit before gains and losses was $4.1 billion. ACC is, essentially, self-funding, in that it funds its activities over the long term through levies. Given the size of its liabilities, however, its expenses can move around quite considerably—for example, when interest rate assumptions change—and this has a direct impact on the OBEGAL. Its deficit in 2023-24 was around a third of the total OBEGAL deficit.

Stuart Smith: What other decisions affected the OBEGAL deficit in 2023-24?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Budget 2023, which the previous Government delivered, had a significant impact on the 2023-24 OBEGAL deficit. Budget 2023 was a big-spending affair. The decisions announced in that Budget were expected to have an operating impact of $5.6 billion in 2023-24. Thankfully, the coalition Government made changes that pulled some of this back. Decisions made as part of the mini-Budget and Budget 2024 delivered operating savings of $1.1billion. The OBEGAL in 2023-24 was, therefore, $1.1 billion better than it otherwise would have been, thanks to this Government.

Stuart Smith: What is the Government’s objective for the operating balance?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The OBEGAL has been in deficit for five years straight. It needs to be in surplus. We recognise this will take time. The Government set out its intention in the fiscal strategy report to return to an OBEGAL surplus in 2027-28 by having very tight operating allowances over the next few years. The Budget update forecasts this to occur, although we know it is not a given and that many factors affecting this balance are outside the Government’s direct control. As Treasury noted in the Budget update, history suggests there is a 30 percent chance that tax revenue will be more than $11 billion higher or lower than what was forecast for 2027-28. The next economic and fiscal update will be the half-year update on 17 December.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement that “The Government will continue to take swift action to rebuild the economy in the interests of all New Zealanders”; if so, why, after 315 days, has there been no decision announced on the Cook Strait ferries?

Yes, I do stand by that statement and I’m proud of the steps this Government has taken to rebuild the economy—in particular, our careful management of Government spending, which has helped take pressure off inflation. With regards to the second part of the question, Ministers are focused on getting the right solution for a safe, reliable, and resilient Cook Strait ferry service. An announcement will be made when Cabinet has made a decision.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she take responsibility for the loss of more than 50 jobs as a direct result of her decision to cancel the new ferries in 2023?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As the member knows, State-owned enterprises make operational decisions independent of the Government. The Government’s decision was to not provide additional funding for the Project iReX. Operational decisions thereafter are the responsibility of the State-owned enterprise.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: When she convinced her ministerial colleagues to cut off the funding for the ferries, did she tell them it would add half a billion dollars to the deficit?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’m not sure the basis of the number that the member has referred to.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she take responsibility for the economy declining, with the number of people on a benefit a new record of 391,224 people, or 12 percent of the working-age population, for the September quarter?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as we have traversed in this House, we have inherited an economy that is very damaged and we are rebuilding it. After 12 interest rate increases under the last Government, we have seen a 75 basis-point reduction, we have seen inflation return—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s enough.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —to the target band, and we have delivered tax relief to 3.5 million working New Zealanders. I stand by that record.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she take responsibility for the economy declining under her watch when liquidations are up 19 percent year on year?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It is, I think, a stretch for me to take responsibility for six years of a Labour Government that cranked up Government spending to irresponsible levels, driving up inflation, causing the Reserve Bank to have to crank up interest rates to levels which have had a very damaging effect on the economy. We’re here now; we’re cleaning up the mess. Our plan is working.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: When will she take responsibility for the economy declining, when liquidations are up; unemployment is up; rents, rates, and insurance premiums are up; and there is a record net migration of Kiwis moving overseas?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I have taken responsibility for the actions that we said we would take to respond to a highly damaged and troubled economy. We said that what we would do is bring discipline back to Government spending, to take pressure off inflation. That’s what we did—inflation is now back in band. We said that in doing that, we would allow interest rates to fall, bringing relief for mortgage holders and business owners. That has been delivered—75 basis points down after 12 increases on their watch. We said we would deliver tax relief; we have. We’re getting on with the job.

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Just before we go any further, that type of constant—constant—barrage across the House during the answers to questions really raises the question as to why we bother with question time. Now, it might be interesting for some people to, you know, bellow out their particular opinion on something, but they haven’t been asked the question and so should keep their interjections to rare and reasonable, and not the sort of barrage that we’ve just seen.

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I wanted to wait until the end of the exchange because I didn’t want to interrupt the flow and it was quite enjoyable, actually, but the last three supplementary questions from the Opposition member there bore no resemblance to the primary question, which was about the length of time in relation to the Cook Strait ferries. So I would just encourage you to reflect on questions that don’t flow from what’s actually been asked and put down on notice.

SPEAKER: Well, with all due respect, the question does talk about swift action to rebuild the New Zealand economy. That is a very broad opportunity to ask questions, and, in the end, the Minister answered them.

Question No. 5—Transport

5. to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made on the Hawke’s Bay Expressway Road of National Significance?

Yesterday, the Prime Minister and I announced that work has kicked off on our Government’s first new road of national significance, the Hawke’s Bay Expressway. In March, we announced the Hawke’s Bay Expressway as a new road of national significance. In July, we confirmed this project would be prioritised as one of our first seven new projects. Yesterday, early works kicked off on this critical project. Four-laning the Hawke’s Bay Expressway will unleash national and regional economic growth, reduce travel times, and improve safety, as our Government continues to move at pace to deliver infrastructure that enables Kiwis and freight to get where they need to go quickly and safely.

Katie Nimon: Why is the Government prioritising the Hawke’s Bay Expressway as a road of national significance?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the Hawke’s Bay Expressway carries 29,000 vehicles a day and links freight to one of New Zealand largest ports. The region’s growing population and economy means that the central section of this road is reaching capacity at peak times, and, as a result, motorists are often crawling in congestion. Four-laning the Hawke’s Bay Expressway as a road of national significance will enable motorists and freight to get where they need to go quickly and safely.

Catherine Wedd: What do these works mean for the great people of Hawke’s Bay?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, starting works on the Hawke’s Bay Expressway yesterday brings great news for the people of Hawke’s Bay. Starting early works now allows the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to maximise the 2025-26 construction season and bring forward the construction of this critical four-lane road of national significance by 12 to 15 months. NZTA is prioritising the Taradale Road to Pakowhai Road section of the Hawke’s Bay Expressway as it is the most congested part of the road and will reduce congestion and travel times for motorists and freight travelling through the Bay.

Catherine Wedd: Why is the Government moving at pace to build a new generation of roads of national significance?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, New Zealand has an infrastructure deficit and our Government is taking action to fix it. Kiwis voted for a Government that would get on and build the infrastructure that our country needs, and that is exactly what we’re doing: getting out there and getting things done. The roads of national significance are some of our country’s best highways. Kicking off work on our first new road of national significance within a year of becoming Government showcases our commitment to continue this track record and deliver for New Zealanders.

Question No. 6—Small Business and Manufacturing

6. to the Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing: Does he stand by his statement, “obviously, people have different perceptions about what went on but I don’t want to get into who said what”; if so, what is his account of what happened between him and the worker on 3 October 2024 for which he has apologised?

I accept the overall account of what happened between myself and the individual. I was certainly not drunk and I do not believe I swore. Regardless, I accept that I was wrong and that my actions caused hurt and offence, and that is why I’ve unreservedly apologised to the individual.

Arena Williams: Is he saying that he did not tell the worker to eff off?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I do not believe I said that.

Arena Williams: Did he call the worker a loser?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Yes. I was wrong, but I intended the comments in a light-hearted manner; unfortunately, it has caused hurt and offence, and for that reason I’ve apologised unreservedly to the individual.

Arena Williams: Did he hold up the shape of an “L” on his forehead?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Again, yes, I did; but again, it was in the spirit of comments made in a light-hearted manner, and that is why I have apologised unreservedly to the individual.

Arena Williams: Will the Minister be clear with the House what part of the complaint he disputes?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I’ve mentioned before that I do not believe that I swore at the individual, and also that I was not drunk.

Arena Williams: So had he had any alcohol at the beer garden or the winery he visited that day?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: No.

Arena Williams: Is he saying that he visited a beer garden and a winery, but the person fudging the truth about his drinking is the worker?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: They are unrelated. You asked me whether I had alcohol and I said no.

Question No. 7—Justice

E te Māngai o te Whare. To the Minister of Justice: What actions is the Government taking—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hold on. No, just wait on. Wait—just wait.

7. to the Minister of Justice: What actions is the Government taking to ensure criminals face stronger consequences for crime?

The Government is taking a range of actions to put more serious offenders in prison for longer and to prevent them from creating new victims. Fewer prison sentences have been imposed in recent years, and at the same time the prevalence of serious violent crime and sexual crimes has increased—which is why we are progressing a range of initiatives, including reforming the sentencing regime to impose tougher consequences for those who commit serious crimes.

Greg Fleming: How will reforming the Sentencing Act ensure that criminals face stronger consequences for crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill delivers on a range of coalition commitments and has three core objectives: to make sure that the punishment fits the crime, to strengthen the principle of personal responsibility for offending, and to better recognise victims by putting them at the heart of the justice system. It caps sentence discounts, prevents repeat discounts for youth and remorse, and introduces a bundle of new aggravating factors and a range of other initiatives.

Greg Fleming: Does the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill go far enough to restore real consequences for crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: We believe so—[Interruption] We believe so. However, the Government will be taking into consideration public submissions on the bill, which close next week. Following feedback, we will assess whether the reform does indeed go far enough. We know that in the year ending June 2024, more than 200,000 people have been victims of crime. No one should accept that as normal. If greater measures are required to restore confidence in our justice system, then the Government will consider such options. I encourage all to have their say at the select committee before next Tuesday.

Greg Fleming: What other actions is the Government taking to strengthen the sentencing regime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: As per the coalition agreement between National and ACT, the Government is reinstating three strikes and has agreed to recommend modifications that will strengthen the regime. This work has been led by my excellent colleague Minister McKee, and is an important tool to reduce the number of victims of serious violence and sexual offending. It is clear that a very small number of prolific offenders create many, many victims. Three strikes will stop them—for longer—from adding more victims to their list.

Question No. 8—Immigration

8. to the Minister of Immigration: What changes, if any, is the Government making to visa settings to support exploited migrants in response to the fourfold increase in migrant exploitation complaints over the last financial year?

Migrant exploitation is utterly unacceptable, and the most important thing the Government can do to prevent exploitation is to limit the opportunity for it to occur. That’s why in April, in response to the Bestwick review and the surge in complaints, this Government made immediate changes to reduce the opportunity for unscrupulous actors to exploit migrants. This included introducing minimum English requirements and the relevant experience requirements for low-skilled roles. I also announced further changes last week to ensure migrants are not placed at further risk of exploitation by allowing them to remain in New Zealand for an extended period of time without employment.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does the Minister agree with the comments of the National Party immigration spokesperson, Erica Stanford, who told Radio New Zealand, one month before the election, that a National Government would give a three-year open work visa to exploited migrants; and, if so, why has she halved the amount of time someone can hold a migrant exploitation protection visa to just six months?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, now that I have a number of officials to advise me on the risks that are posed to migrants who are here on an open work visa, which is what we’re seeing now—numbers of people being exploited when they are not working for an accredited employer, those principal applicants—the advice given to me was to make sure that we are limiting the amount of time given for a migrant to be in the country without a job. I would note that six months is a reasonable amount of time for someone to look for work and gain meaningful employment with an accredited employer.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree with the unanimous recommendations that the migrant exploitation inquiry carried out last term, which received advice from immigration officials—and National MP Erica Stanford participating in—advising the Government at the time that the migrant exploitation protection visa should be extended beyond just six months?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The advice that I’ve been given since I’ve become the Minister is that the migrant exploitation visa period of 12 months is too long to leave a migrant without work, especially without work for an accredited employer where we have oversight. They are in a difficult position. That leaves them open for more exploitation, and the moves that we’ve made in the last week are to make sure that there is an acceptable and reasonable period of time for them to find employment, and if they do not have the skills and experience to find employment after six months, then it’s time to leave New Zealand.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister confirm as to whether it’s a fact that the greatest percentage of migrant exploitation is being exploited by their own and that is the recent history of this country, sadly?

SPEAKER: The Minister can attempt to answer, but it’s not strictly her responsibility.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Yeah, the advice that I’ve had is that migrant exploitation is undertaken by many people or many businesses in New Zealand. The most important thing that we can do is to make sure that we’re limiting the time to a reasonable amount of time that someone can spend in the country on an open work visa, thereby limiting the amount of time that whoever is doing the exploiting is able to do that.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why does the Minister blame the massive increase in exploitation claims on visa settings incentivising offshore agents to offer fake jobs, when her own Cabinet paper acknowledges that would only be 150 people compared to the 3,925 migrant exploitation claims?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: If I understand the question correctly, there are a number of reasons why migrants get exploited. Some of them are because they are exploited by an offshore agent who is selling them a fake job. Some of them are exploited here by people in New Zealand who run businesses. The point of this visa change is to make sure that both of those problems are solved by making sure that the people who are here are working for an accredited employer—which means we have oversight—and that they’re not here for an extended period of time being able to be exploited. It also means that there isn’t a long period of time to be on an open work visa, which gives overseas agents more of a tool to sell exploitation because of an extended period of an open work visa.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Did she talk to any exploited migrants, unions, workers’ rights advocates to substantiate those comments, or is she making those statements based off vibes and without information from the ground?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: My officials undertake communications with a range of different peak bodies and migrants. I also have a peak body that I speak to who give me information about the levels and rates that people are being exploited, and I take that advice on board when I’m making changes, and I did in this case.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is he doing to address the staff physical bullying, staff smuggling drugs, sexual advance of youth offenders at Korowai Manaaki, as reported by Mana Mokopuna to the Government July 2024?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the Minister’s taking very seriously the need to improve safeguarding and protection of young people at Oranga Tamariki. As you’d be aware, the Mike Bush review identified nine areas of focus, and there’s 40 actions. She’s been working her way through that. What happened over the last 24 hours was incredibly unfortunate, but what I’d say is, you know, we’ve had one rooftop incident this year; we’ve had 15 in 2023. So it’s not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but the Minister’s working hard through the action plan.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is he doing to stop the staff-initiated fighting amongst the offenders, as reported to the Government by Mana Mokopuna July 2024?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I just said, the Mike Bush independent review came forward with a series of 40 actions. I think about seven have already been completed, a number already pending and in progress, and the Minister’s working her way through that with her team.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is he doing to ensure youth advocates have access to the youth offenders, as reported to the Government by Mana Mokopuna in July 2024?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said, there are nine focus areas, and there’s 40 actions. The Minister is taking each of those 40 actions coming out of that independent review very seriously. If the member has specific questions, I’d encourage her to address those questions to the Minister.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How does he justify the 133 percent increase in benefit sanctions over the last year when unemployment is the highest it has been in three years as a direct result of this Government cutting 7,000 public sector jobs?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m actually proud that we’re actually enforcing rights and responsibilities in this country. What we’re making sure is that there will be sanctions on benefits for people who do not uphold their basic obligations to this country and to each other. The system works in a way where if you are needing help—and we all want to support people with a welfare net and safety net, but, actually, that means that you need to meet your obligations: have a résumé, meet with your case manager, show up for interviews. Not complicated—reasonable expectation.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What happens to the tamariki of the 1,029 beneficiaries with dependent children who have had their benefits cut in the last year?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as you’ll be well aware, we have a traffic light system that gives good communication. Most of our beneficiaries are working incredibly hard meeting their obligations and are in green and fully compliant, others are amber, and others are red. But we make no bones about it. It’s a very simple task. If you’re going to receive a benefit, which is funding from your fellow New Zealanders through the tax system, you need to be able to make sure you meet some very basic obligations: have a résumé, show up for an interview, and meet your case manager. It’s not difficult.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is this Government upholding its Treaty obligations by removing Treaty provisions from 28 separate pieces of legislation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: This Government is determined to do well for Māori. As we have talked about in this House before, it is utterly unacceptable that only 12 percent of Māori are ready to go to high school with their maths knowledge. We are determined to improve outcomes for all New Zealanders, Māori or non-Māori.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will he front up to the hīkoi for Te Tiriti when it arrives at Parliament from Te Rerenga Wairua on 19 November?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m not sure what my schedule will be at that time; I have a funny feeling I might be overseas, but the point would be, very clearly, people are free to protest as long as it’s done legally and peacefully.

Question No. 10—Education

10. to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement that “We know it will take time to increase attendance rates but this government expects kids to be in school”; if so, how does she reconcile this with the closing of school bus routes across the country?

To the first part, yes; to the second, bus route reviews are required to ensure eligible students can access school transport assistance, and the ministry comply with their statutory obligation under the Public Finance Act to ensure funding is spent appropriately. I’m advised that in September 2022, the ministry proposed a review of 950 bus routes to the then Minister to address a “significant number” of routes that were operating outside of policy settings and the appropriation. The Minister declined and paused proactive reviews for 18 months, coinciding with the election year. There is now a huge backlog of reviews to be undertaken, and the failure to do so will result in unauthorised expenditure. Reviews will ensure that eligible students can get to school.

Hon Jan Tinetti: In what way, if any, will closing school bus routes increase attendance rates?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Unlike the last Government, it is important that we are acting within the appropriation that we have legally, according to the Public Finance Act, which means that we have to do reviews of school bus routes. That is up to the ministry; it is something that they have to do. Luckily for the public of New Zealand, we also have a Government who aren’t prepared to just kick the can down the road. I have instructed my officials earlier in the year to investigate opportunities to improve the efficiency and accessibility and flexibility of school transport delivery, and they’ve been working on this since February.

Hon Jan Tinetti: How does she reconcile her expectation that kids should be in school with her decision to let bus routes close?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I haven’t made any decisions to close bus routes. As the previous Minister well knows, that is an operational matter for the ministry to make sure they’re operating within their appropriation. I have been advised by the ministry that they are quite sure that they are acting, well, not within their appropriation, which means that they are in breach of the Public Finance Act. That means that it is their legal obligation to make sure that they are doing these reviews. However, unlike the previous Government, we are proactively looking at what opportunities exist for us to have a more efficient, flexible, and accessible transport option for students. We are working on that at pace, and I will have more to say in the coming months.

Hon Jan Tinetti: What does she say to the Hawke’s Bay mother who, due to the cancellation of her local bus route near Kaiwaka, says that she has no other option but to allow her son to commit truancy?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I would say to that mother that it’s unfortunate that the previous Government didn’t look at the policy settings and acted outside the appropriation. It would have been far better if the previous Government, in the last six years, had looked at the policy settings and worked out whether or not we could have a more flexible and appropriate policy. Unfortunately, they didn’t do that. We have a tsunami now of bus routes that legally need to be looked at, which is what the ministry is doing. But we are working at pace on new policy, unlike the last lot.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: With respect to the last question, was that information from the Hawke’s Bay mother referring to Kaiwaka referred on to the Minister so she could answer it direct—and it would sort out the geography for a start?

SPEAKER: Well, at least part of that question can be answered.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’m not sure if it was forwarded on to me, but I can have a look and get back to the member.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does she agree with Federated Farmers, who said, “Cutting these routes would hollow out our rural communities, which would be devastating.”, and, if not, why not?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, I’m excited to say that Federated Farmers have met with the Ministry of Education transport division. The two of them have had a very informative discussion and have actually agreed on a way forward, and we’re looking forward to working with them on options for the future to make sure that those local people, with their students, do have access to flexible and efficient bus routes.

Hon Simeon Brown: Can the Minister confirm that between September 2017 and October 2023, there were bus routes that were stopped as they didn’t meet the eligibility criteria?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I can confirm that that happened under the previous Government. The unfortunate part was that they didn’t then look at the policy overall—

Hon Jan Tinetti: Was it 250 routes? Because that’s what we’re talking about.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Oh, the member says, “Was it 250?” The reason it’s 250 is because the previous Government decided over an election period to just pause for 18 months, leaving us with a tsunami of routes that legally need to be reviewed, otherwise we’re acting outside of our appropriation. The previous Government might like to work outside appropriations, but, actually, we like to follow the law.

SPEAKER: I’m sure that the excitement in the Government benches is because they’ve all just learnt something new, but it doesn’t help the Minister in answering a question when there is more noise coming from behind the Minister than the Minister’s voice itself. I’ll just send a bit of a warning that this has got to stop.

Question No. 11—Agriculture

11. to the Minister of Agriculture: What actions is the Government taking to support the primary sector?

on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture: This week, the Government is progressing the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill through the House. This underscores our commitment to slash the tangle of red tape throttling some of New Zealand’s key sectors, including farming, mining, and the primary industries. When we came into Government, we recognised the urgency of making—

SPEAKER: Just stop—stop. We’re going to hear the rest of it in silence. It’s getting out of control. Finish your answer.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: We recognised the urgency of making these changes and didn’t waste any time getting them into the House. Amongst other things, the bill will exclude the hierarchy of obligations in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management from resource consenting, repeal contentious low slope map and associated requirements from stock exclusion regulations, as well as speeding up and simplifying the process for preparing and amending national direction. These changes will reduce the regulatory burden that’s been holding back our rural sector and imposing unnecessary cost on farms and on our world-leading farmers. There is a lot more work to do, of course, but these changes are an important first step in our commitment to get Wellington out of farming.

SPEAKER: Good. OK. We’ll have a bit of a focus on brevity and conciseness in answers.

Suze Redmayne: Does the bill address uncertainty around discharge consenting?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: On behalf of the Minister, yes. Clarifications to discharge consenting provisions in this bill will provide certainty for agricultural and horticultural producers, making sure councils continue to manage discharge consents in a practical way. Recent High Court decisions on sections 70 and 107 threatened to make the law unworkable by reducing councils’ abilities to manage discharge from a range of activities. Without clarifying the law, these decisions may restrict councils’ abilities to issue or reissue consent for discharge from activities by industry, farming, meat processing, as well as waste-water discharges.

Suze Redmayne: What steps have been taken to give certainty to farmers on the national roll-out of freshwater farm plans?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: On behalf of the Minister, the Government is restoring confidence to the rural sector by pausing the roll-out of freshwater farm plans while changes are made to ensure the system is affordable and more practical for farmers and growers. We intend to table an Amendment Paper to the bill to pause the roll-out of freshwater farm plans in the regions where they have taken effect. Thousands of farmers around the country have been facing a ticking clock to get plans drawn up and certified, and this will provide certainty for them.

Hon David Parker: Point of order. The Minister’s just said that there are some intended tabled amendments coming today that we haven’t yet seen.

Hon Chris Bishop: They’ve been tabled.

Hon David Parker: Well, I’ve not yet seen them, sir—

SPEAKER: Please don’t interrupt a point of order.

Hon David Parker: —and I want to inquire whether there has been any ruling inquired as to—

SPEAKER: Just start your point of order again. That interruption was not acceptable.

Hon David Parker: Sir, in respect of these amendments that there were press releases about today, I accept the word of the Leader of the House that he says they’re now tabled, but we haven’t had the chance to see them yet. My question is whether there has been any inquiry of the Clerk’s Office as to whether they fall within the scope of the bill.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order, the Amendment Paper was tabled this morning and the Opposition must have a copy of it, because the Hon Rachel Brooking has tweeted a photo of the Amendment Paper.

Hon David Parker: My question is—

SPEAKER: Just a minute—everyone’s got to be quiet.

Hon David Parker: —whether there has been—

SPEAKER: Sorry, no, would you wait a minute. OK.

Hon David Parker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question was—I think there are some serious scope issues here—whether there has been yet a ruling as to scope from the Clerk. If there hasn’t been, that’s a matter for debate. I’m just interested as to whether there has been a scope inquiry of these serious amendments.

SPEAKER: Well, if they’re tabled, I’d assume that they have been ruled as within scope of the bill. Is there another question?

Suze Redmayne: What steps have been taken—

Hon David Parker: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I have—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, just let me—for goodness’ sake! The Hon David Parker.

Hon David Parker: I have tabled many amendments, sir, without having advice from the Clerk as to whether they are within scope. So I’m not sure—

SPEAKER: All right. I’m not “Father Confessor” here. Sorry about your past.

Hon David Parker: No, sir. With respect, the fact that something has been tabled doesn’t mean to say that it has been checked as to scope.

SPEAKER: That’s right. But I said that that was my assumption, and I’ll certainly check it. I can’t do that from this position right now. Does the member have another question?

Suze Redmayne: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. What steps have been taken to give certainty to farmers and ratepayers on freshwater plans?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: On behalf of the Minister, this afternoon the Government has announced that we will also be tabling an amendment to the bill, which will restrict councils’ ability to notify freshwater plans before the gazetting of the replacement National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. The last Government’s national policy statement is extremely complex and expensive for farmers and councils to implement and, despite that, will not deliver improved freshwater outcomes. That’s why this Government is committed to reviewing and replacing it next year. We’re making this change to the law because ratepayers and farmers need certainty, and they don’t deserve to have their money wasted. Councils will still have an avenue to progress their freshwater plans in some circumstances, but we want to draw a line under the last Government’s failed attempt once and for all.

SPEAKER: Good, excellent—question No. 12.

Question No. 12—Justice

12. to the Associate Minister of Justice: What announcement has she made about strengthening the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill?

I have recently announced proposals to strengthen the three-strikes law that this Government is reinstating. I’ve heard from many New Zealanders who want the Government to do more to hold the worst violent and sexual offenders accountable. I’m proposing that criminals who previously received strikes under the old three-strikes law will have those strikes recognised under the new three-strikes law if they meet the same eligibility criteria. I am also proposing adjustments to the qualifying sentence threshold to ensure serious offenders are captured earlier in their offending.

Mark Cameron: How would these proposals ensure that repeat violent and sexual offenders are held accountable for their past actions?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: My proposal to carry forward eligible strikes, accumulated under the previous three-strikes law, into the new regime makes it clear that offenders will face consequences for their past actions and they will not be able to continue harming communities under this Government. This proposal will mean that if criminals who offended under the last three-strikes law continue to offend, they will gradually receive longer prison sentences and be locked away from law-abiding New Zealanders for longer too.

Mark Cameron: Why has she proposed changes to the qualifying sentence threshold for offenders receiving their first strike?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I am proposing to lower the qualifying sentence threshold to 12 months for first-strike offences. This will mean that more offenders will receive a first-strike warning earlier. It will send a clear message to those criminals that further offending will result in longer prison sentences.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Why did she decide to subvert parliamentary process and announce these changes before the Justice Committee has reported back and on the basis of private emails to her office, rather than taking into account the overwhelming majority of public submissions to the select committee which opposed the failed three-strikes regime?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I don’t want to pre-empt the select committee’s report, but publicly available submissions show an overwhelming majority of support for what the Government is trying to achieve here. I’ve heard loud and clear the call to go even further to restore law and order, and that’s what these proposals to strengthen the three-strikes regime will do.

Mark Cameron: Has she proposed any modifications to the “manifestly unjust” provisions contained within the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: No, the “manifestly unjust” provision remains intact, ensuring that there is judicial discretion that can be applied when needed. This provision allows for flexibility in cases where applying a strike might produce manifestly unjust outcomes. It will ensure that only the most serious violent and sexual offending will be captured by the three-strikes regime.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: No, the question allocation has been used up. That brings oral questions to a close.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and the Contracts of Insurance Bill.