Oral Questions

4. to the Minister of Finance: Fakaaue lahi, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by her statement, “What New Zealanders can have confidence in is that they have a Government that is delivering what it said it would”; if so, now that FamilyBoost has begun being paid, how many families have actually received $250 a fortnight promised in the National Party’s election campaign?

To the first part of the question, yes, and to the second part of the question, the member’s assertion is wrong. The commitment was for up to $250 a fortnight, and I am advised that, in some circumstances, families could get even more than $250 a fortnight. At the time of the Budget, Treasury’s modelling indicated that around 1.9 million households—3.5 million New Zealanders—would benefit from tax relief and FamilyBoost, on average by $60 a fortnight, and households with children would benefit on average by $78 a fortnight. I’m also advised that at least one party in the election was guaranteeing precisely zero dollars a fortnight in tax relief [Interruption].

SPEAKER: Wait; hang on, hang on. In silence. Respect for your own member.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. If I come to the House with the Labour Party’s policies which showed that we were actually offering tax reductions for New Zealanders, will Nicola Willis have to withdraw and apologise for that?

SPEAKER: Just a moment. I am going to hear that again because I couldn’t hear it because of the outburst. It’s a point of order.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I’ve just finished.

SPEAKER: Yes, but what did you say? I didn’t hear it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’ll tell you what he said.

SPEAKER: No, I don’t want you to interpret it, sorry. We’ve only got one language in this House that I understand.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’m speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Sorry, Mr Peters, if you don’t mind, I’d like him to repeat his point of order.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, Mr Speaker, we’ve already had one Minister in the Government today have to come and correct an answer that they gave, making allegations about the previous Labour Government, and so will Nicola Willis have to do the same tomorrow?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Finance Minister Willis said “one party”, and straight away he took the guilt and confessed.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, thank you for that point of order.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: New point of order. That question was on notice, and despite the comments by the Minister disagreeing with the so-called assertions in it, “up to” is inclusive of, and so a question asking for the exact number of $250 is still valid. Whether they disagree with how they presented it or not, “up to” includes $250. The Minister could still have made that point but actually answered the question, and she did not.

SPEAKER: Well, I think she did certainly address the question, and that’s the only judgment that I can make about questions. Does the Hon Barbara Edmonds have a further supplementary?

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How many families have actually received the $250 a fortnight as promised by Christopher Luxon as part of the National Party’s election campaign?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The member well knows—or at least she likes to assert that she knows a lot about the income tax system, and that is calculated on the full year, which we’re only part-way through. [Interruption]

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Just wait for a few seconds. OK.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the Government delivering what it said it would when, by the first week, there were 32,407 FamilyBoost claims but only 8,672 claims have been approved and paid?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I’m very happy to correct the member’s numbers. The latest stats for FamilyBoost, up to and including 15 October, is that 44,952 households have registered, there have been 38,206 claims relating to 35,489 households, Inland Revenue has paid $6.2 million to 15,749 households since 7 October, and Inland Revenue expects that around 100,000 households will be eligible for FamilyBoost. Can I repeat again: I want families to go on to that IRD website and claim for their entitlement.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the Government delivering what it said it would when she promised more than 100,000 families will get FamilyBoost, but have under-delivered with only 8,672 being paid in the first week?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I stand by the statements I have made that around 100,000 households will be eligible for FamilyBoost, and I am pleased that the number of successful claims is growing every day. I would say that this is far more effective than a promise to take GST off bananas and give supermarkets tax relief.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the IRD, that said, “FamilyBoost would require significant effort by recipients to access the product which may create a barrier to product uptake, particularly for parents of young children who are already time poor.”, and why did she not just do early childhood education 20 hours free?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We made a commitment that our childcare policy would put cash directly into people’s bank accounts. The way that we are delivering it will achieve that. We were also advised other ways of doing that would take many months and years of delay, and we weren’t prepared to make that delay. We wanted that cash for families.

SPEAKER: Can I just say that that constant talking all the way through the Minister’s question doesn’t change the answer and it doesn’t help the order of the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. That’s somewhat what my point of order is. Could you ask whether the questioner heard any part of the answer, because her bench mate spent the whole time screaming out during the answer from the Minister of Finance, and it’s a disgrace to this House?

SPEAKER: Well, thank you. I’ve offered to swap jobs with you before. Keep that up, and we’ll be heading down that track.

Question No. 5—Prime Minister

E tautoko ana ia i ngā—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hang on. I just need everyone to settle. OK.

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

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

Yes, our action to put economic growth on the fast track is something we stand by. Since we announced the 149 projects that would be listed in the fast-track legislation, the feedback that we have received has been extremely positive. The National Road Carriers Association described the list as balanced and achievable. The Electricity Retailers’ Association said fast tracking would help provide confidence to build and deliver affordable, clean electricity. Business New Zealand said the projects would stimulate job creation and economic activity at a time when it mattered most. It is a collective vote of confidence in our economic plan. Inflation is falling, interest rates are falling, confidence is rising, and now with reforms like fast track, we are delivering the foundations of growth. I just ask that member and their party to support the fast-track legislation.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he think it’s fair that his Government’s Fast-track Approvals Bill has given new life to projects previously denied by the Supreme Court, like the Trans-Tasman Resources seabed mining and the Ruataniwha dam project, that had already been opposed by local communities, iwi, and hapū?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, look, I’m not going to comment on individual projects. I will accept that some projects will be controversial and be criticised, but obviously their environmental appraisal will happen through expert panels. But what I do not apologise for is that we are a Government that’s going to deal with an infrastructure deficit, a housing crisis, and an energy shortage. Actually, fast-track legislation helps us address those problems in this economy, and I just encourage the member to support us.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by the statement of his Minister for Local Government that said, “the ultimate localism is giving local people the right to have their say”, and, if so, would he then agree that his Fast-track Approvals Bill is a blatant disregard for localism and communities by deliberately limiting community input and public consultation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’ll just say to that member I think it’s outrageous that she doesn’t want to deliver up to 55,000 new homes. I think it’s quite outrageous as a leader of a Green Party that you don’t want to increase renewable electricity generation by 30 percent. I think it’s quite outrageous that you don’t want to invest in 180 kilometres of great new roads, public transport, and also rail.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is entirely possible to consent new renewable energy projects without also consenting coal mining that will drive up climate-changing emissions, or does he take New Zealanders for chumps?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, no, but I hear New Zealanders saying they want things to get built in this country. They want things to get done, and that’s what we’re doing on this side of the House and that’s, frankly, why they elected us a year ago. They elected us to come here and to get things done for them, to improve their lives, to rebuild this economy, and that’s exactly what we’re doing. Support the fast-track legislation.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister please explain to the House how the new coal mining that he has consented will almost all be primarily for grades of coal that will almost never be used domestically but exported offshore, meaning that his “Indonesian coal” talking point takes real liberties with the truth?

SPEAKER: Hang on. There’s just a small problem with that question. I think if you think about how you’ve phrased that—just have another crack at it.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister explain to the House how the new coal mining that he has consented under the fast—

SPEAKER: No, that’s the problem.

Chlöe Swarbrick: —that will be consented—that is one of the 149 projects—

SPEAKER: Just say it in a succinct way and correct way.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can the Prime Minister please confirm to the House—or explain to the House—how the new coal mining laid out in the 149 projects announced under the fast-track legislation will primarily be for grades of coal that are not used in this country but exported offshore, therefore meaning that his “Indonesian coal” talking point takes incredible liberties with the truth?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I just say to the member we are going to get things built in this country. Mining is important—if you believe in electric vehicles, if you believe in smartphones, if you believe in solar panels and wind farms, then you need to have minerals. So we are proud of the mining projects. I just say to you, look, if you want to back fast track so you get more renewables, do it. If you want to end the gas ban so we stop importing coal, support us—if you want to back the mining so that we can actually get electric vehicles and other minerals we need for environmental benefits. [Interruption]

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why—

SPEAKER: Sorry, it’s very hard to take any question seriously when there’s so much barracking during an answer.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why does the Prime Minister say that he values community voice and localism, as he’s so frequently stated throughout the election campaign, then actively implements policy that undermines and overrides community voice and that localism?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because we can get community voice and we can also make decisions and get things done, and that’s what we’re going to do.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Would the Prime Minister take the Greens more seriously if they’d have said something in opposition to the importation, massively, of inferior Indonesian coal under the last Government, of which they were active members, and now come here and placate their conscience with stupidity?

SPEAKER: Well, I don’t think there’s any direct ministerial or prime ministerial responsibility for that debating point.

Question No. 6—Health

6. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his decision to appoint a commissioner to deliver a turnaround plan that will improve Health New Zealand’s financial performance; if so, how will he ensure that the current financial year’s performance is better than financial year 2023-24?

I absolutely stand by the decision to appoint a commissioner to Health New Zealand. The troubled health reforms, coupled with the deterioration of Health New Zealand’s finance and performance levels, left us with no choice but to take urgent action. It was not sustainable to continue with the status quo. To the second part of the member’s question, our Government has already made a record investment in health of $16.68 billion across three Budgets. I have directed the commissioner to take appropriate steps to ensure Health New Zealand returns to budget so that our record investment can be put to good use on the front line.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Has he sought a so-called turnaround in Health New Zealand’s finances by assigning $130 million of cost for redundancies that are yet to occur to financial year 2023 rather than financial year 2024?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I have done to assure financial return to budget is to make sure that Health New Zealand has enhanced budgeting processes that align functions with accountability, move to a regional model with local monitoring and accountability, and regular governance meetings that include Treasury and the Ministry of Health.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Has he sought a so-called turnaround in Health New Zealand’s finances by withholding pay equity funding that Health New Zealand were expecting in financial year 2023, until financial year 2024?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Absolutely not. I would point to exactly the same thing that member did in the 2022-23 Budget with nurses’ pay equity that was accrued in 2022-23, and they did not pay it till 2023-24—exactly the same—resulting in a deficit of $1 billion in her hands.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he have confidence that the treatment of Health New Zealand’s Holiday Act liabilities reflects best practice, or might this liability be inflated so that the commissioner can more easily engineer a so-called turnaround in future years?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: If that member had paid attention to Holidays Act remediation, we would be further through than we are. It is fair to say it’s challenged, but that’s also because we’re bringing together 20 payrolls, but we do have a schedule for Holidays Act remediation.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is the reason that Health New Zealand turned up to select committee without its accounts and had 70 staff tied up in non-disclosure agreements because he and the commissioner are cooking the books rather than funding the health system properly?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: No, that is not correct. I would point to the opening address, to the financial documents that were released, where, of the three issues that are pointed out for the financial deterioration of Health New Zealand, the opening statement is “Staff recruitment (both insourced and outsourced) being ahead of budget, combined with weak internal controls that did not arrest the growth”, which was pointed out this year by the Auditor-General.

Question No. 7—Education

7. to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements has he made on improving school attendance rates?

I recently announced a second group of initiatives in the Government’s attendance action plan. From the beginning of 2026, all State schools will be required to have an attendance management plan based on what’s called the Stepped Attendance Response—or STAR. The basic premise of STAR is that every child’s attendance matters every day. Once a child is absent for five days, 10 days, or 15 days a term, the school must investigate the reasons for the absences and apply an appropriate and proportionate response in each case.

Laura Trask: How will prosecution be applied to parents of students who are chronically absent?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Parents can already be prosecuted for unjustified absences. I’ve directed the Ministry of Education to take a more active role in the prosecution process. Schools and attendance officers are actually asking for this when I meet them. The ministry will not prosecute parents of students who are absent because of chronic illness or health conditions associated with a disability or who are genuinely engaging with a school and the support offered. However—and it’s unfortunate—some parents actively avoid and evade that kind of support, and it’s in these circumstances that a child’s right to an education in this country is paramount and prosecutions could be used.

Laura Trask: How will the Government support schools to implement the STAR system?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I’m currently meeting with attendance officers, deans, deputy principals, and other community agents engaged with attendance to develop best-practice materials that schools will be able to use in their attendance plans. The ministry is also developing materials which will help schools have difficult conversations about the underlying issues—such as bullying, anxiety, and disengagement—that are leading to poor attendance. I’ve asked the ministry to coordinate a multi-agency response with schools in each region and to review the resourcing applied to the attendance service. I’ve also directed the Education Review Office to review the systems and supports for students who are chronically absent. This will provide a good base of support for better attendance where everybody—students, parents, schools, and Government departments—has a role to play.

Laura Trask: What support has the Minister received in response to the attendance announcements?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: A former teacher emailed me to say—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What opposition have you received?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —“‘You beauty’ is all I have to say.” And I hear the heckling from the Labour Party, “What opposition are you getting?”; well, like most Government Ministers, the opposition I’m getting is pathetic, I’ve got to say. I’ve also had a teacher email, “As a teacher with more than a decade of experience, there is only one thing I know for sure: the more time the kids spend in class, the more they learn; the better they achieve in school. I applaud your focus on student attendance. Well done for this initiative.” Another said, “Well done on putting together a nationwide set of attendance and truancy expectations that are clear and easy to follow.” And my favourite: “You are a hero, David. History will judge you kindly. Please keep up the good work.”

Question No. 8—Education

8. to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her decision to cut $30 million from Te Ahu o te Reo Māori?

Yes.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What is Te Ahu o te Reo Māori?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Te Ahu o te Reo Māori is a professional learning and development (PLD) course for teachers across the education sector who can partake in anywhere up to 20 hours of professional learning and development to learn te reo Māori.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is she aware that Te Ahu o te Reo Māori was specifically designed for teachers, and, if so, why does she think a free te reo Māori course is an appropriate substitute for professional development for teachers?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: What I know is that the course was 2.3 times more expensive than could otherwise have been commissioned. We know that 40 percent of people did not finish the course. We know that 10 percent of the people who did the course were not directly in front of students teaching them. We also know that there were another 10 percent of teachers who were doing the course that were doing it at a level that was not required to be used in the classroom. We made the decision because we know in the future that we can design and develop a course that will be much more practical and also get better value for the taxpayer’s dollar.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What does she say to Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori—Māori Language Commission—chair Professor Rawinia Higgins, who is deeply concerned about the cut to Te Ahu o te Reo Māori, and has she taken up Te Taura Whiri’s invitation for open dialogue on the programme?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I would say that they would be also deeply concerned about the fact that as a system, we were having a PLD provision that was 2.3 times more expensive than other similar courses, and only had 60 percent of people actually finishing the course. I would also say that it is important that teachers in front of students can pronounce Māori names and use everyday common phrases woven into their teaching, but this particular course was not good value for money and we can contract better in the future.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister: would students at the reo Māori lessons learn more if they kept their mouths shut while the teacher was talking? [Laughter]

Rawiri Waititi: You’re going to allow him to say that?

SPEAKER: Order! The House will come back to order!

Rawiri Waititi: You’re going to laugh about it?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: You’ve got a million rangatahi watching you.

SPEAKER: Yeah, good, excellent. Go and have an argument outside. Be quiet in here.

Rawiri Waititi: Yeah, I’m keen.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, you wouldn’t last five minutes.

Rawiri Waititi: I’m keen. You wouldn’t last five seconds, mate.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You wouldn’t last five seconds.

Rawiri Waititi: You wouldn’t last five seconds.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You might walk out, but you’d be limping back.

Rawiri Waititi: You might not even get to the door. Stupid fool.

SPEAKER: Now, if that keeps up, the two of you can head outside and have a discussion.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What does she say to rangitahi from Te Kura Kōhine o te Rāwhiti o Te Upoko o Te Ika / Wellington East Girls’ College who say—and I quote— “It is so important and just taking it away is so crazy because it’s something that was already taken away from us, and it’s taken so many years to try and get it back … We need more people, not less.”?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’d say what I’ve been saying consistently: that as a steward of public money, it’s important that we get the best bang for our buck. When we’re able to contract something that is almost 2½ times less expensive and get better results, then we will do that. I’ve already said publicly that we’ve entered into negotiations and discussions with my officials about what we can do in the future to get better value for money.

Question No. 9—Education

9. to the Minister of Education: E tautoko ana ia i āna kōrero me āna mahi katoa?

[Does she stand by all her statements and actions?]

Yes, in particular my recent announcements of the first nationwide phonics checks in te reo Māori. Undertaken across a two-year period, this check for tamariki learning in bilingual or immersion includes oral assessments, including a hearing check for glue ear and multiple check-ins on early phonemic awareness to ensure that tamariki Māori are supported to excel in te reo Māori.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Could the Minister please explain how she’s demonstrating her commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi when making her decisions about education?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’d be pleased to. Every single thing that this Government and I have done as a Minister of Education has been completely and utterly mirrored in te reo Māori. You can take our phonics check that I’ve just talked about. You can talk about decodables for structured literacy that have been designed, written, printed, and delivered in schools for the first time in this country’s history. We could also talk about the maths resources that have been announced yesterday that are going to be available in te reo Māori—printed, delivered to schools by term 1 and term 2 next year. This is a Government that is totally committed to making sure that tamariki Māori and rangatahi Māori are achieving at their full potential, and we will continue to make sure that we put achievement at the heart of our work programme.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: How does making Te Tiriti o Waitangi and te reo Māori a lower priority for schools—than they currently are—align with the Government’s commitment to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I’ve already said, we are putting student achievement at the heart of every single thing that we do. If we want to honour the Treaty, it means closing the equity gap so that the decades of disparity that have pervaded our system in the disproportionate representation of tamariki Māori and rangatahi Māori in the lower quartiles of our education and achievement system is closed. It is my utmost belief that education can and should be the primary protective factor for our kids and a way in which they can break through intergenerational cycles of poverty and disadvantage and live the life that they want, choose, and deserve.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: What does she say to the 11 education organisations—including the Teaching Council, NZEI Te Riu Roa, PPTA Te Wehengarua, New Zealand Principals’ Federation, and Te Akatea—who say that the Government is proposing to, “demote the place of Te Tiriti o Waitangi”?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I would say that that is completely untrue. I’ve already stated that putting educational achievement at the heart of our work programme to make sure that rangatahi and tamariki Māori are achieving to their full potential is giving effect to the Treaty of Waitangi.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: What would she say to Māori communities who were not consulted on downgrading te reo in the Education and Training Act before this was put out for public consultation, or the defunding of Te Ahu o te Reo Māori, and may feel that their language, culture, and rights are being undervalued by this Government?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I would say what I’ve already said to this House many times today, that the course was not good value for money. We can contract much better in the future.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question specifically was around what she would say to Māori communities. This is in accordance with Speaker’s ruling 206/4, and the Minister was referring to the value for many of the programme, which is an unrelated matter under that particular Speaker’s ruling.

SPEAKER: Well, I don’t really think, given the general tenor of the questioning, that’s a reasonable position to take.

Hon Tama Potaka: Can the Minister of Education please confirm that Māori student achievement and Māori school attendance reduced in the five years prior to her becoming the Minister?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: When we came into Government, one of the alarming statistics that was in front of us was the fact that 12 percent of tamariki Māori are at curriculum for mathematics by the time they go to high school. It is this Government’s absolute priority to make sure that those tamariki Māori are achieving at the same rate as every single other child, which is why we are heavily investing in decodable books and maths resources to make sure that we improve their academic performance so that they can go on to live the life that they want.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm that this Government is utterly committed to supporting schools’ choice to offer te reo Māori if they choose, or not, if that’s the community preference?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’m also proud to say that this Government, for the first time, I think, in this nation’s history, has included kura kaupapa Māori in our network planning for schools. Because we are dedicated to choice in education, we’ve ring-fenced $100 million for kura kaupapa property funding because we know the dire state of their property and we are absolutely committed to making sure that tamariki Māori and their whānau have the choice in education if they want to go to mainstream, immersion, rumaki, or kura kaupapa.

Tākuta Ferris: The Minister has referenced twice that Te Ahu o te Reo Māori was of lesser value—

SPEAKER: No—sorry, it’s question time. Start with a question.

Tākuta Ferris: Which courses has she used to determine the undervalue of Te Ahu o te Reo Māori?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, if I’m understanding the member’s question right, when we looked at the performance of each of the providers—there were 13—there was one particular provider that had a completion rate as low as 10 percent.

Question No. 10—Education

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

Yesterday, I was delighted to announce the four suppliers of ministry-funded maths resources freely available to State schools across New Zealand from term 1 of 2025. Schools will have the option to select from a range of flexible packages from PR1ME, Maths - No Problem!, Numicon, and Oxford University Press that include online resources, teacher guides, student workbooks, lesson plans, games, and activities. I’m really delighted that the Government has committed these resources directly to teachers and students to lift achievement and support the implementation of the new maths curriculum.

Rima Nakhle: What resources will be made available in te reo Māori as part of the maths action plan?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: To ensure those learning through te reo Māori have the same opportunities to engage with the updated pāngarau curriculum, the ministry will be fully funding resources for teachers and students in te reo Māori that are curriculum-aligned and reflect best practice around the OECD. For the first time, I am proud that everything we are doing in structured maths and structured literacy is also being delivered in te reo Māori to ensure equitable access across our education system to high-quality resources.

Rima Nakhle: What other supports are being provided to schools as part of the maths action plan?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The maths action plan brought forward the introduction of the new maths curriculum for the year 0 to 8 students from term 1 of 2025. This puts in the hands of our teachers a knowledge-rich, year-by-year, world-leading curriculum document, now supported by a substantial resource package. In addition, this Government has committed $20 million of professional learning and development funding to support teachers to unpack and embed the new curriculum and these resources in their classes.

Rima Nakhle: What feedback has she received?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The feedback has been heart-warming. From a teacher: “Thank you for the transformational changes you are making to literacy and maths for our tamariki.”, and from a principal: “We have been using PR1ME maths for about five years, and the difference it has made for our learners is incredible. We are thrilled that you are investing in this programme across New Zealand. All our learners will benefit. Our school budget will also benefit. We are very grateful.”

Question No. 11—RMA Reform

11. to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: Does he agree with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s submission on the Fast-track Approvals Bill that “The Bill lacks many of the environmental safeguards its predecessor legislation contained. Even the much-maligned National Development Act 1979 had more environmental checks and balances”?

No. The Fast-track Approvals Bill is still before the Environment Committee. It includes environmental safeguards throughout the process, including at the referral stage and the panel decision stage.

Glen Bennett: How can he stand by his statement in this House on August 27, regarding fast track, “We’ve replicated the same law that Labour adopted.”, when that law contained projects like wind farms, solar farms, housing, and rest homes without ever overriding the Resource Management Act (RMA), the Wildlife Act, or the Conservation Act?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I can stand behind it because it is true. We have taken the process, or the extremely similar process, from the COVID-19 fast-track legislation in which the Government legislates projects and then they go off to an expert panel for consenting. As the member will be aware, the Government has recommended to the select committee that the panels have the ability to decline projects. In relation to the projects that the member’s just mentioned around wind farms and solar farms, he might have missed the announcement a few days ago, but we’ve announced 149 of them and 22 of the projects of the 149 were renewable energy projects. There’s a whole bunch of housing developments in there, as well.

Glen Bennett: Is the reason he’s claiming this fast-track bill is the same as the previous bill because he’s trying to distract from caving to New Zealand First’s demand to push private mining projects through without proper, public, or environmental scrutiny?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, that new member has made a tragic mistake. He’s got no evidence for that, and, if he has, he needs to show it before he puts it in his question.

SPEAKER: Yes, I think it would be fair to say the question could be reworded.

Glen Bennett: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is the reason he’s claiming this fast-track bill is the same as the previous bill because he agreed to New Zealand First’s push for private mining projects, which will not have proper public or environmental scrutiny?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Look, I’m not claiming the bill is exactly the same as the—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Yes, you have been—yes, you have, and so has the Prime Minister.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No one has ever claimed the bill is the same; if it was the same, it wouldn’t be a bill in Parliament. By definition, it must be different. What we have claimed is that the substance of the process around the Government selecting projects and referring them to an expert panel which works on an expedited time frame compared to the traditional process is similar, and is in substance, the same. Clearly the bill is different. Firstly, it is a one-stop shop. It does not just deal with the RMA; it deals with heritage legislation, the Conservation Act, the Wildlife Act. So it is a one-stop shop. Secondly, it deals with national and regionally significant projects. So, clearly, it is different but the process that has been laid out in the bill is the same, or extremely similar, to the last Government’s COVID-19 fast-track legislation. In relation to the private mining—

SPEAKER: Hang on. That’s a really good answer at that point.

Glen Bennett: Did he receive a paper stating that seabed mining and offshore wind are incompatible as it disrupts the seabed floor, potentially delaying Taranaki offshore wind development until the 2070s?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I’ve had literally hundreds of papers on fast track, so I can’t give the member an accurate answer. If he wants to put it down in writing, I’m happy to go away and have a look at it. What I would say, though, is that wind and mining both have futures in New Zealand, and it is possible to do both in this country. It is possible to build wind farms, as it is possible to have mining for coal and for other minerals that we need in New Zealand. New Zealand’s future is in doing all of the above, not closing our mind off to extractive industries that provide jobs and growth in regional New Zealand. That member’s party started life in a part of regional New Zealand founded on the mining industry; we are now the party of the workers.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hang on a minute. OK, away you go.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister: is it possible to have solar or wind power without mining?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I’m by no means a scientific expert on this, but my understanding from the phone that I spend so much time on is that it’s very difficult to make things like iPhones and, indeed, wind turbines, and all the other things we need in the modern world, without mining.

Glen Bennett: How can he pretend that this legislation is balanced—

SPEAKER: No, just a minute. The member’s own side are talking while he’s trying to ask a question.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Ha, ha!

SPEAKER: Well, you don’t have to stay in the House.

Glen Bennett: How can he pretend that this legislation is balanced when it resurrects projects like seabed mining off Taranaki, projects that have already failed under normal environmental safeguards but are now being rammed through on his watch?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, firstly, there are a couple of factual errors there. Firstly, they’re not being rammed through; they’re being referred to an expert panel for consenting. As we’ve indicated, the expert panels will have the ability, if they can’t manage the adverse effects, or the panel decides that the adverse effects from a project can’t be managed, those projects could be turned down.

Question No. 12—Building and Construction

12. to the Minister for Building and Construction: What changes is the Government making in the building and construction portfolio, and why are these changes needed?

To the first part of the question, the Government has a big year of building reforms already and we are just getting started. Our guiding principle is that building needs to be easier and regulations need to be streamlined, proportionate to the risk, and consistent nationwide, and place liability where it is most appropriate. For the second part of the question, we know that change is desperately needed and long overdue, including because of the housing crisis in this country, which has been a longstanding challenge and issue, one that the Government is utterly committed to solving through, among other things, the Going for Housing Growth programme of my friend and colleague Chris Bishop.

Cameron Brewer: What specific initiatives are under way to make building easier in New Zealand?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The Government has announced a range of initiatives from small common-sense changes to larger, more structural reforms, all with the goal of letting good tradies get on with the job. I won’t list them all here today, because I know you wouldn’t allow me to, but the most significant ones include removing barriers to overseas building products to drive competition and reduce prices, allowing granny flats and other structures up to 60 square metres to be built without a building consent or resource consent per the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement—extremely popular; not only with grannies, at that—and commencing a major reform of the structure of the building consent system to improve efficiency, certainty, and consistency across the country.

Cameron Brewer: How important is the building and construction sector to the economy?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Extremely important. So, notwithstanding the construction recession that we inherited, a recent report found that the building and construction sector contributed some 20 percent of all jobs in New Zealand, and $99 billion in sales. The system that we did inherit was a jungle of red tape through which builders were forced to fight for even the most simple project. Much of the regulation added no meaningful protection for consumers.

Cameron Brewer: How has the sector responded to the changes?

Hon CHRIS PENK: I meet regularly with building industry, from large corporations to small business and sole operators all over New Zealand. Overall, the sector is extremely supportive of the Government’s approach to reducing red tape so that they can get on with building. For years, the sector has wanted a Government bold enough to make significant reforms in the building and construction sector, and now they have one.

Cameron Luxton: While the Government is reducing red tape in the building industry, what is it doing to increase the standards and accountability for building professionals to ensure continued confidence in the sector?

Hon CHRIS PENK: I thank the member for the question, which is a very good one. The Government’s looking at strengthening requirements for building professionals, including penalties, to ensure that Kiwis have confidence in their biggest asset, namely the residential home. The vast majority of tradies are doing a very good job, but we do need to make sure that those who are careless or incompetent are held to account. The trade-off for reducing oversight for relatively low-risk work—for example, granny flats—conducted by qualified, professional, and respectable tradies, is that we have adequate safeguards in place to hold careless or incompetent individuals to account.