Oral Questions

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

Yes, and especially our action to beat inflation and to allow interest rates to fall. We’ve worked incredibly hard, since we entered Government, to reduce pressure on inflation. We’re stopping wasteful spending, we’re taking costs off businesses, and we’re slashing through the red and the green tape that have been choking off growth, allowing our economy now to breathe. The good news is that there are some early signs that our plan is working. Inflation is falling—forecast to fall further later this week. Interest rates are falling, with two cuts delivered so far in 11 months and further rate cuts forecast in the coming months. We know life is incredibly tough for too many Kiwis, but we’re working incredibly hard and I’m confident that brighter days are ahead.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the reason—

SPEAKER: Just wait for a minute.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the reason there are only two roads of national significance in the South Island because the South Island’s roads aren’t significant or because the South Island isn’t significant to National?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Nice try, but I’ve got to tell you, the South Island’s very important to me. I consider myself a Prime Minister from Christchurch, actually. We’ve got great road investments in Christchurch as well as the investments that have already taken place up and down the South Island. Importantly, we’re working incredibly hard to make sure that we get a ferry solution that keeps these two great islands connected, so watch this space.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How can the people of the South Island trust his Government to maintain the Cook Strait connection when 308 days have passed since they cancelled the order for new interisland ferries and they still haven’t come up with a viable alternative?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think the good people of New Zealand will well understand that a Government like ours—unlike the other Government that started off with a project of $600 million that turned into $3.2 billion, we are going to get the right-sized solution, a comprehensive, sustainable solution for the Cook Strait. Watch this space. We’ll sort it out for you; don’t worry.

SPEAKER: Just one moment. I’ll just remind the House that questions are heard in silence. It’s also somewhat surprising that so many Government members seem surprised by the answers they’re getting.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why won’t his Government commit immediately to rail-enabled ferries that are critical to the future viability of rail in the South Island?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I would say to you: rail has an incredibly important part to play in New Zealand’s infrastructure mix and transport mix. We are big supporters of rail. We’re going to make sure we’ve got a rail capacity - enabled ferry that’s going to materialise at some future point, so watch this space.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by National Party leader Christopher Luxon’s statement to the people of Otago Southland, to “trust us” that National would futureproof the new Dunedin hospital?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: They can trust us that we’re going to build them a great hospital for $1.9 billion. That’s $300 million more than the last Government was going to spend.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How can the communities in the South Island from Westport to Dunedin trust his Government when they’ve had to resort to marching in the streets for their hospitals to be built and staffed?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said in Dunedin, we’re going to build a great hospital in Dunedin, but we’re going to do it at $1.9 billion, not closer to $3 billion.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why wasn’t he aware that his Government had declined funding for a longer-term strategy to deal with the flood risks in South Dunedin; was he not properly briefed before his visit or does he just not care?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just remind that member that it was his Government that declined the proposal that was sent forward by the district council. What we are doing is we are making sure that we’ve got a climate adaptation framework in place, that it considers all the stakeholders and considers multiple generations and different political leadership as well.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister understand that increasing greenhouse gas emissions increases the intensity and frequency of severe and devastating weather events?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister then understand that his decisions to enable more coal mining and reopening fossil fuel exploration and drilling will increase greenhouse gas emissions and, therefore, the intensity and frequency of severe and devastating weather events?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I understand is that ending the oil and gas ban and creating a so-called just transition just led to the loss of domestic gas production and the importation of foreign Indonesian coal, making global greenhouse gas emissions worse. I would just point out to both the leaders of Labour and the Green Party that we have a fantastic new piece of legislation called fast track that will enable us to generate 30 percent of the current electricity generation in renewables, so I’d encourage you all to support it.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister then guaranteeing this House that all of the coal, oil, and gas that his Government will enable the production of will be used here in Aotearoa New Zealand?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’m saying is we want to make sure that we can produce domestic gas again, rather than import huge quantities of Indonesian coal because of the failed policies of the Labour-Greens Government. It was a bumper sticker, it wasn’t thought through, it didn’t have second/third order implications, and no one thought it through properly. We like to have a plan, and we’re going to get it done.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What does he say to communities like those in South Dunedin who have this past weekend experienced the latest so-called one-in-100-year flood, knowing that his Government’s policies will contribute to the increasing intensity and frequency of severe weather events?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject the characterisation of the question, but having visited the area with the great Minister for emergency management, what I can say is, that event was incredibly well managed compared to the one of several years ago with a similar quantity of water. I met with the pump station people. They did an exceptionally good job to keep South Dunedin safe—wasn’t it great?

Hon David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Climate Emergency Response Fund for years and years put billions into trying to reduce global emissions with little effect while nothing was put into adaptation to protect New Zealanders’ homes and livelihoods from the effect of severe weather events, and, if so, is this Government going to start investing in the infrastructure to protect New Zealanders from severe weather instead of tilting at windmills around the world?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That question cannot possibly be in order, for several reasons. One is that it contains a whole lot of assertions about the previous Government that simply are not true and that could never be authenticated, but also it was a statement rather than a question.

SPEAKER: Yes, the question is: “Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?” Now, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the statements that are stated in the question have been stated by the Government at some point, so I don’t know how I could selectively choose which is which.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to the point of order further: “his Government’s statements and actions?”—the actions of the previous Government don’t fall within the scope of that.

SPEAKER: Yes, I know, but what I’m saying is that the Government is most likely to have made statements about the actions of a previous Government. It brings it in line with the question.

Hon David Seymour: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. I honestly didn’t think my question was that devastating, but if the Labour Party don’t want an answer—

SPEAKER: No, no, that’s—

Hon David Seymour: —I’m happy to withdraw it.

SPEAKER: That’s not particularly helpful. Thank you.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Yep.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I wonder if David Seymour could indicate which Standing Order he was referring to with the point of order he just made.

SPEAKER: Well, I would invite him to do that, but we’ve had a long afternoon with very few questions answered so far. Did you have a question, Mr McAnulty?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I had a point of order, but I’m not sure there’s much point.

SPEAKER: Right, OK. Well, that’s good—that’s progress. We’ll move now to question No. 2.

Question No. 2—Finance

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

Last week, the Reserve Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee reduced the official cash rate (OCR) by 50 basis points. That followed a drop of 25 basis points in August and took the official cash rate down to 4.75 percent. These reductions mark a significant turning point for the economy. Changes in the official cash rate and expectations about its future path affect both short-term and longer-term market interest rates. These include mortgage and business lending rates, which have a direct impact on New Zealand families and businesses.

Ryan Hamilton: What reasons did the Reserve Bank give for cutting rates?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Monetary Policy Committee said that it believes annual Consumers Price Index inflation is now within the 1 to 3 percent target range and is converging on the 2 percent midpoint. Monetary policy can, therefore, be less restrictive than it has been for some time. The Reserve Bank has also signalled further reductions to come. Markets are anticipating another 50-basis-point reduction before the end of the year, then more gradual reductions in 2025.

Ryan Hamilton: How have the banks responded to these OCR cuts?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Banks have responded, in some cases pre-emptively, by reducing retail interest rates, most visibly their advertised mortgage rates. These reductions will flow through to people’s interest payments, depending on how long it is before their current loan matures. At present, half of mortgage lending is either floating or fixed for six months or fewer. That is a higher proportion than we have seen in recent years, and it will increase the speed with which interest rate drops flow through to household budgets. It is very good news indeed.

Ryan Hamilton: By how much will families benefit from lower mortgage rates?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, of course, that does depend on their individual circumstances, but I can give one illustrative example: an interest rate reduction from 7 percent to 6.25 percent for a family with a 25-year $500,000 mortgage means their repayments would reduce by just over $100 a fortnight. They could then use that money elsewhere in the family budget or simply pay their mortgage down faster. And this is, of course, great news for families, who in recent years have suffered both a cost of living crisis and 12 increases in the official cash rate under Labour, with high interest rates required to bring inflation under control.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: Fakaalofa lahi atu, Mr Speaker. Does she agree with the statement of National finance spokesperson Nicola Willis that “National will stop the waste and restore discipline to government spending, while protecting all frontline services”; if so, why?

Yes, absolutely. And if the member looks at the coalition Government’s Budget in May, she will see many examples of reprioritisation from lower-value spending to higher-value spending, of fiscal discipline by having the lowest operating allowance in real terms since Steven Joyce’s Budget in 2017, and protection of front-line services, with the biggest part of the Budget being investments in health, in education, and in law and order.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Isn’t it the case that her decision to recklessly cancel the rail-enabled Cook Strait ferries without a plan B is the opposite of discipline?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I would note that the decision that Cabinet made was not to provide the additional funding requested by KiwiRail, which was in excess of the business case that they had presented. And I would note that our officials advised us that we should decline that funding.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Isn’t it the case that the current operating balance before gains and losses deficit of 3.1 percent is higher than what was forecast in Budget 2024, and excluding the COVID 2020 year, this is the highest since the global financial crisis?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I’ve said it before, and let me say it again—and I hope members opposite listen up—we inherited a mess. And if you look at the last financial year, you will recall who was in Government for at least half of that financial year. You’ll also recall who set the Budget for that financial year, which was the members opposite. I am very happy to share this fact: if it weren’t for this Government being elected, that deficit would have been $1.1 billion worse at least.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact, Minister, that the so-called rail-enabled ferries purchase that we inherited was 80 percent not about rail-enabled ferries but about something else, to the extent of $2.8 billion in that respect?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Deputy Prime Minister is absolutely correct. That project had gone so far off course that the actual cost of the ships had reduced to around 20 percent of the overall project cost, because there had been a laxness which had allowed a massive blowout in the cost of the overall project.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her promise at Budget 2024 that 100,000 families would benefit from FamilyBoost when for the first week it was open only 8,672 families received it?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I would like to thank the member for that question, because it is correct that up to 100,000 families are eligible for the FamilyBoost payment. And I’m advised that around 50,000 have registered for that payment so far. But I’ll tell you what’s really important. What’s really important to me is that every family who is eligible for that payment be aware that they can go on to the IRD website and apply for it. I want to see as many families as possible get that tax refund to which they are entitled. And the more the member talks about it, the more I’ll welcome it, because I want it on TV, I want it on the radio, and I want it the newspaper. Apply for FamilyBoost, get your $975 today. Labour said you couldn’t have it; we want you to get it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister itemise for us some of the positive things she could have done with the not-one-metre-built light rail cost of $1.2 billion that we inherited?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Deputy Prime Minister, let me count the ways we could have spent that money better. I think of the investment we could have made into structured literacy and mathematics in our schools a year earlier. I think of the investment we could have made in reducing waiting lists for elective surgery. I think about how we could have got those 500 extra front-line police earlier. I think of what it would have looked like if we had courts that actually sentenced violent criminals appropriately. All of these are the sorts of front-line investments that this Government is making while that last Government wasted New Zealanders’ money.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. All of that was fine until that last statement, and it seems like we have to go through this process—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: When a point of order is being made, don’t speak. I’ve been incredibly tolerant of this to this point, but the tolerance is at its limit. Start again.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you, sir. It seems like every sitting week we have to make this point at some stage, and we can point to numerous examples where you have made it incredibly clear to Government benchers that they are not to use questions asked by their own side to have a crack. Now, I listen very carefully to every answer, and it always seems to be the trend that they listen until the final jab, and then they go against your rulings. Whether it be at the start or the end, this is a consistent trend, and if we are to ensure that your rulings are followed, this should be pointed out.

SPEAKER: Thank you, and I’m happy to point that out again, but I’ll also make the point that there was considerable barracking, interjection—whatever you want to call it—throughout the answer to the last three questions, and I would suggest that that makes it very hard for me to concentrate on what the answers are. But, in general, it is a point that when Ministers are answering questions, they should not use that opportunity to attack the Opposition. It’s been made very clear that if it’s pointing to a matter of record, that’s fine, but attacks on the Opposition are not appropriate.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Given only 8,672 families have received FamilyBoost, when will she take responsibility for making it so difficult for parents to access their entitlements for early childhood education, or is that her approach in order to save money?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the member should listen to answers and then revise her supps accordingly. As I said, we expect more families to claim for that payment over time, and I am the first to say that I want as many families as possible to claim their entitlement. And the thing that New Zealand families who are eligible for that childcare rebate need to understand is this: they are eligible for up to $975 that will go directly into their bank accounts if they go and do the IRD application process. And, yes, it is true that the National Party campaigned on a policy that it wanted to see that money delivered more directly. Officials advised us that if we were to take that approach, we would have to wait several months, possibly years, in order to deliver on the policy. So the choice that the Government made was to get that money to New Zealanders faster. The choice members opposite have made is to deny that New Zealanders should be eligible for any money whatsoever.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Going from the previous questioner, how many more families on the margins of FamilyBoost could have been helped if we had the $54 million wasted on a cycleway over the Auckland Harbour Bridge, which never got spent?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I suspect many families would have enjoyed it had money been invested in a policy like this sooner, because the simple reality is that the member on the other side of the House is criticising the Government for choosing to put money into families’ bank accounts. Well, I’m proud that we’ve put in place a system that will ensure many families are hundreds of dollars better off.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. There’s a question to be asked around the Minister’s responsibility for a policy that is not in place under her Government, and so I wish to raise concern about that being allowed through. An example from this Government such as decisions they have made—like tax cuts, for example—would have been in order. But, again, that was a supplementary question for the sole purpose of making a political point, and we didn’t need to wait for the answer to know that that was the case.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect, this is a current question, apposite today. What the Minister’s been asked, as Minister of Finance, is how she would have spent that money if she had it today rather than have it wasted previously when not one thing happened as a result of that $54 million expenditure on the Auckland Harbour Bridge. This is a corruption investigation that should be mounted right now because there’s nothing to show for it—nothing to show for it.

SPEAKER: Hang on. That wasn’t the matter of the point of order. You want to be precise about the point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The first part was.

SPEAKER: Well, OK, I’ll take the first point to save us going over the second one. Have you got—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: You can’t allege corruption in a point of order.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I’d have to agree with the overheard comment there: you can’t allege corruption—that members have acted corruptly in the House. It’s not an appropriate thing. I would invite the member just to state the point of order again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, the point of order, arguably, wasn’t a current-issue question. I was asking what would the finance Minister have done if she had that extra $54 million available today to increase the margins of the FamilyBoost families, and many, many more, hundreds and hundreds, would have been included. That’s all I said, because the $54 million was spent on the Auckland Harbour Bridge cycleway option, with nothing to show for it. Not one metre was built; $1.2 billion was spent on three waters—nothing happened.

SPEAKER: Yeah, good. It’s not a speech—not a speech. You’ve made the point.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That’s why the question becomes: is this incompetence or is this corruption?

SPEAKER: Well, I don’t know; you can ask yourself that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’m asking them because they spent it.

SPEAKER: I’m not here to judge that particular point.

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

SPEAKER: Can I just say before the member speaks—OK, I’ll hear from the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When a member makes an allegation, either by way of an answer or by way of a point of order that is unparliamentary and that questions the character of other members, in almost every instance of that in the past, the Speaker has required them to withdraw and apologise, not given them an opportunity to withdraw the offending remarks and repeat a point of order which wasn’t, in fact, a point of order in the first place.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you for your advice. The way I heard it was that the word “should” was put in there; not a direct implication. I will check the Hansard to make sure I’m right.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. If I indicated by way of a point of order that people “should” investigate whether the Government over there are full of pathological liars, would that be acceptable?

SPEAKER: Well, you’re not actually accusing anyone of lying in that event, are you?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: OK. All right then. Good to know.

SPEAKER: It’s akin to suggesting that someone is simply reckless with the truth. There are always ways to get around these words. But I didn’t hear the direct allegation made; I heard the word “should”, and I think that makes a slight difference. May I make the further comment that when the question actually asks for a response around waste, it does lead to the party being asked about that waste to determine what the waste is.

Question No. 4—Conservation

4. to the Minister of Conservation: What does he say in response to the co-chair of the Hauraki Gulf Forum’s description of his Government’s decision to allow commercial fishing within new marine protected areas as being “bewildering” and “catastrophic”?

I would say thank you for your genuine and longstanding efforts to progress this important legislation. Tīkapa Moana, or the Hauraki Gulf, is an iconic and majestic place and it’s in trouble. This Government will take action to establish the highest ever protection in Hauraki Gulf, nearly tripling the area protected. With our proposed changes, we have balanced the needs of the environment with the economy and communities to allow a small number of known fishers who operate on very small waka no bigger than six metres between March and August to supply four species to local communities who have gone through a serious cost of living crisis and many of whom don’t have easy access to fish, in an arrangement to be reviewed in three years.

Darleen Tana: How, in his view, does the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill reverse the effects of overfishing and destructive fishing methods in order for New Zealand to meet our obligations to protect and preserve the marine environment as a signatory to UNCLOS, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Just as a couple of examples, we have extended the marine reserves both up at Te Hāwere-a-Maki up near Leigh and also at Te Whanganui-A-Hei near Cathedral Cove. We’ve also seen the proposed establishment of sea-floor protection areas that will stop bottom trawling and Danish seining. There are a number of ways in which this proposed legislation will progress protecting and supporting the Hauraki Gulf Tīkapa Moana.

Darleen Tana: How does this Government plan to rejuvenate mauri within Tīkapa Moana, noting the evidence that crayfish is functionally extinct, that one in five snapper are so sick as to be referred to as zombies, and that kina is left to run so rampant such that rimurimu is receding at a rate faster than many honourable members’ hairlines.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: By progressing this proposed legislation through to second reading and third reading and into legislation; that’s how we will see better protection of Hauraki Gulf Tīkapa Moana te pātaka kai [the food storehouse].

SPEAKER: I’d just suggest the member asking a question doesn’t add little bits on at the end of it that are outside of what is acceptable commentary in the House.

Darleen Tana: How concerned is he that New Zealand may face litigation in international court of law, as did Germany, who were forced to ban bottom trawling in their territorial waters because they chose not to protect and preserve their marine environment under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’m very proud to be part of the Government that’s moving to protect the Hauraki Gulf and to triple the area or the rohe that’s protected under this legislation. We believe that it is a win for the environment, a win for the taiao, a win for the economies and communities that surround Tīkapa Moana, and we’re very proud to progress it.

Tākuta Ferris: Can the Minister confirm for the Hauraki iwi that the six-metre fishing boats he’s referring to aren’t small purse seine net draggers fishing from a mothership much larger than six metres?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As we have mentioned both outside the House and now, we are really committed to the protection of Hauraki Gulf. There will be final advice and drafting done by the Parliamentary Counsel Office and we will ensure that there are relevant conditions that make this a very small and narrow exception to no fishing in the high protection areas.

Question No. 5—Customs

5. to the Minister of Customs: What details can she provide about recent drug seizures at the border?

Last month, a shipment of steel beams from the United States weighing more than 16 tonnes arrived at the Port of Auckland. Upon identifying inconsistencies with the shipment, customs officers took further analysis and discovered 515 kilograms of methamphetamine concealed within the beams. This discovery led a joint customs-police investigation that resulted in the arrest of five individuals. Investigations are continuing, with the possibility of further arrests. This is yet another example of the level of sophistication the criminal groups are using to try and pedal their misery in New Zealand communities.

Andy Foster: How many individual doses does that over half a tonne of meth represent?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I’m advised that 515 kilograms of methamphetamine amount to around 25.7 million individual doses and around $570 million in harm to New Zealand communities and our economy. We know the extreme harm that methamphetamine causes to people who use it, their families, and their communities in which they live. We also know that it is a contributor to the escalating violence in our communities. The exceptional work of customs officers stopping this scale of methamphetamine from entering our communities demonstrates the critical role they are playing in protecting New Zealanders. This Government is committed to being tough on crime, ensuring our communities are safe, and offenders face consequences for the harm they cause.

Andy Foster: Is it becoming harder to detect the importation of illicit drugs into New Zealand?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Transnational organised crime groups are sophisticated enterprises that will look for any weaknesses in our border system so they can exploit it. We’ve seen them actively recruit workers on ports and within airport facilities, employ technologies to hide their activities, and engage in increasingly daring approaches to avoid detection. It’s through the dedicated and diligent work, alongside coordination and information-sharing across agencies, that we continue to detect and disrupt criminal organisations and better protect our communities.

Andy Foster: What work, if any, is under way to make it harder for organised crime groups to operate in New Zealand?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Transnational organised crime groups represent a significant threat to New Zealand and pile misery into our communities, not only through drugs but through their activities like fraud, migrant exploitation, and tax evasion. These groups are sophisticated businesses that operate across crime types and across borders. This means we need a strategic coordinated response to detect and disrupt these gangs’ activities. While we have good foundations to build on, I believe more could be done to join up efforts across Government to tackle the interconnected nature of offending that transnational organised crime represents. That is why I’m progressing work that aims to strengthen operational responsiveness across Government and update the transnational organised crime strategy. It is critical that we have the tools and operational processes to detect, prevent, and dismantle organised crime in New Zealand, and I expect to be able to make further announcements before the end of this year.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is his response to the Waitangi Tribunal regarding his Government’s Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Bill (MACA bill) that “the Crown’s actions are such a gross breach of the Treaty that, if it proceeds, it would be an illegitimate exercise of kāwanatanga.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, as we’ve said before, what we’re achieving with the MACA bill is to make sure that it goes back to the original intention of this Parliament, which is balancing customary rights but also the legitimate interests and rights of all New Zealanders as well.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is his response to the tribunal, who asked what the motivation is behind giving Paul Goldsmith free rein to act unlawfully and in flagrant breach of the Treaty to extinguish what are already very basic and limited rights?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, the Government is proposing to amend the Act to ensure that it is interpreted and applied as Parliament intended back in 2011. Last year, as you know, the Court of Appeal ruling changed the nature of the threshold and materially reduced the threshold, and all we’re doing is putting it back to its original intention.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he see iwi and hapū rights as a barrier to multinational corporations pillaging, drilling, and mining our coastlines?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, as you know, through the fast-track legislation, we’ll have an expert panel that will weigh up environmental and other concerns.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is the Government intent on reducing Māori rights down to almost nothing with the marine and coastal area amendment bill and the Fast-track Approvals Bill because Māori will not support projects that destroy our w’enua and our moana?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think it’s been fantastic to see many iwi actually embracing fast-track legislation. At the end of the day, they understand that to build 55,000 houses, to have a 30 percent increase in our current electricity generation, to build 180 kilometres of new roads would be a good thing for New Zealand.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Which iwi and hapū Māori support the destructive offshore oil exploration that will be enabled under the Crown Minerals Amendment Act and support Trans-Tasman Resources seabed mining?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, look, I’m not going to comment on individual projects, but what I accept is that some projects will be controversial and they’ll also be criticised. That’s why we’ll have an environmental appraisal from an expert panel.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was actually which iwi and hapū Māori support it.

SPEAKER: Well, he made the answer that he wasn’t going to comment. So that kind of closes that off.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: No, he actually said he wouldn’t comment on the projects, but he didn’t say which iwi support.

SPEAKER: I think if you read the Hansard afterwards, you’ll find that it was an answer to the question—not the answer you wanted, but an answer to the question.

Question No. 7—Health

7. to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by her statement in relation to heated tobacco products that “I wasn’t aware that … the products that were on the market were not going to be compliant with the 1st of October changes”; if so, why?

Yes, at the time the excise on heated tobacco products was reduced. I was first informed by officials on 27 September 2024 that Philip Morris would no longer be able to sell their heated tobacco devices in New Zealand. I’m well aware that the member asked a question during question time on 23 July 2024 about whether it was correct that Phillip Morris’ product did not meet the child safety requirements. I have never been concerned about which companies will or won’t be able to sell their products. It has always been that suitable products are available to support smoking cessation. I have been attacked and vilified for my connections to the tobacco industry, and it now seems the member was concerned that I was unaware of negative impacts on the tobacco industry. I can assure you the irony is not lost on this side of the House. I cannot seem to win whichever side of the argument she positions.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did the Minister, on 11 March, seek Cabinet committee approval to defer the changes to child-proofing e-cigarettes coming into force by two years?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As the member is aware, there was a number of tweaks and adjustments to the vaping products availability. As we knew we would be introducing legislation this year, before Christmas, to ban completely all disposable vaping products, we were concerned about further adjustments continuing. It was not accepted by Cabinet, and therefore the deferral was not put in place and the changes were implemented on 1 October this year.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: When she advised Cabinet that the deferral was necessary because “It is likely that higher quality vaping devices used by former adult smokers will soon be unavailable domestically as high-end manufacturers that cater to international markets may not make New Zealand specific models.”, what devices did she have in mind?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: At the time, I was referring purely and specifically to vaping products.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Well, can she name a specific product?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: No, because I don’t vape.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: If she can’t name a specific product, who wrote in her Cabinet paper the following statement: “It is likely that higher quality vaping devices used by former adult smokers will soon be unavailable domestically as high-end manufacturers that cater to international markets may not make New Zealand specific models.”?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The advice in the Cabinet paper is provided by officials from the Ministry of Health.

Question No. 8—Infrastructure

8. to the Minister for Infrastructure: What announcements has he made regarding the Fast-track Approvals Bill?

Minister Jones and I were proud to announce a few days ago 149 projects with significant national and regional benefits would be included in Schedule 2 of the one-stop-shop Fast-track Approvals Bill—the first cabs off the rank in our unapologetic drive to grow this economy for the benefit of New Zealanders, to help rebuild the economy, fix our housing crisis, improve energy security, and address our infrastructure deficit.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: There should be a corruption investigation.

SPEAKER: We’ll just calm a lot of the comments down, given concerns expressed earlier.

Tim Costley: What benefits will these 149 fast-track projects have?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, they have significant regional and national benefits. If they’re approved by expert panels, they’ll deliver jobs and growth and develop a pipeline of major projects. For example, the 44 listed housing developments will enable up to 55,000 new homes to be consented; the seven aquaculture and farming projects are expected to have an output of 143,000 tonnes per annum; 43 infrastructure projects resulting in at least 180 kilometres of new road, rail, and public transport; 22 renewable electricity projects to help electrify our economy, boost security, and help meet our climate change goals; and the 11 mining projects will help make a major contribution to our objective of doubling the value of our mineral exports, extracting coal, gold, iron sands, and mineral sands.

Tim Costley: What feedback has the Minister seen regarding these projects?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. To quote just a few, Business New Zealand said these projects will stimulate job creation and economic activity at a time when we need it most; Forsyth Barr said it has the potential to give a much-needed injection of energy into the downbeat economy; Infrastructure New Zealand said the list of projects was balanced; and let me quote chairman and executive director of the Environmental Defence Society, Gary Taylor, who says, “while I come from an environmental perspective, I am also a Kiwi interested in [the] economic welfare of our nation, and a lot of the infrastructure projects look good to go to me, subject to environmental assessment … a lot of the renewable projects, a lot of the housing projects … a lot of them are all good to go”. We are heartened by the support from both sides of the political aisle.

Tim Costley: Can the Minister tell us what the next steps are for the Fast-track Approvals Bill?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the 149 projects will be listed in Schedule 2 once the bill is reported back from the Environment Committee. Once the bill’s passed, projects that are listed will be able to apply to the Environmental Protection Authority to have an expert panel assess the project and apply relevant conditions. As we publicly said before, the Government is recommending to the Environment Committee that expert panels will have the ability to decline approval for projects. New Zealanders can expect economic growth to be at the heart of what this Government does, and fast track is just one very important part of that.

Hon Nicola Willis: To the Minister: can he advise the House that when it comes time to cut the ribbon on the opening of some of these extraordinary projects and when it’s time to celebrate the jobs that are created, the incomes that are rising, the growth that is delivered, and the renewable energy that is delivered, will he ensure that invitations are made to members of the Opposition to attend those events?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, as the House knows, I’m a generous man, and we want all New Zealanders—even the Labour Party—to share in the fruits of economic growth. So, yes indeed, I’ll be doing that.

Question No. 9—Children

9. to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by her statement, “If funding has been withdrawn from a provider, it’s because they are either under-delivering the services that children and young people need, or other providers are better placed to deliver those services, or it’s just not core business”; if so, is she concerned that the Auditor-General has opened an inquiry into Oranga Tamariki’s procurement and contract management practices?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. In answer to the first part of the question, yes. And, in answer to the second part of the question, no, I’m not concerned. Public spending should be scrutinised, and given the hundreds of millions of dollars Oranga Tamariki spends on contracting services and the importance of these services, it is essential that they buy services that are actually delivered, the services are getting the outcomes that are expected, and they are receiving value for taxpayers’ money. I expect Oranga Tamariki to provide their full cooperation to the Auditor-General while they undertake this inquiry.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is she confident that Oranga Tamariki have followed a robust procurement and contract management process, have used evidence and analysis to inform their decisions, and that they have effectively managed their relationships with community providers, and if so, why?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I think that’s something the Auditor-General is looking into right now, and I’ll comment once that inquiry is over.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question wasn’t about the process; it was about her confidence in Oranga Tamariki’s performance of the things that I listed—her confidence.

SPEAKER: That might be right, but the Minister has already said that she welcomes the investigation by the Auditor-General. It’s not unreasonable to say that she wants to wait till she sees that to make a comment. You’ve got to have some sort of basis to give an answer.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is she confident that Oranga Tamariki has used clear criteria and evidence for their contracting decisions, when Te Pai Ora Social Service Providers Aotearoa, which represents over 200 service providers, says, “For many contracts there appears to be no transparent process or rationale for cutting some services that have good evidence of their positive impact”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: If the member has a specific question about a specific provider, I welcome her to put that in writing and we’ll get the answers to her, but if the member is truly concerned about funding decisions that Oranga Tamariki has made, then she should come and see me, provide the details, and I can go away and look into that for her.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister not concerned that she inherited an administration, with respect to Oranga Tamariki, that has been sending off children to adults whilst, in so many examples, a massive percentage of those adults were never vetted as to whether they would be safe with those children in the first place, and is that a cause for serious alarm?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: There is a lot that has been inherited, and a lot of issues that we are working through, and this is why I have set my expectation that Oranga Tamariki go back to their core purpose, which is the care and protection of our young people and making sure that they meet their obligations of the national care standards when it comes to our young people.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why will she not take responsibility for a shambolic contracting process that has seen the Independent Children’s Monitor and the Chief Children’s Commissioner—

SPEAKER: Sorry to interrupt the member. The House can be quiet while a question is being asked. Please start again.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why will she not take responsibility for a shambolic contracting process that has seen the Independent Children’s Monitor and the Chief Children’s Commissioner raising concerns and seeking clarity, and now the Auditor-General opening an inquiry?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Like I said, I am looking forward to hearing back from the Auditor-General around any concerns he may find. It is important that Government spending is scrutinised, and I welcome his report.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: When will she admit that she forced Oranga Tamariki into a rushed and confusing contracting process that risks harm to our most vulnerable children because her Government wanted to save 6.5 percent for tax cuts?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I will not apologise for putting children first and I will not apologise for not accepting the status quo. We’re not going to spend more money and more money and not get better results. There has to be accountability for money that is being spent. We have to bring back discipline to public spending. We have to make sure that we are providing the services that these children need.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, point of order. I’m rather concerned at the way this question was framed. For a start, the honourable member’s putting a question that is not even grammatical, and the first thing we should do in this House is to be able to ensure that something makes sense. There it is on the fourth line—it’s not even grammatical. She never corrected it and nor did your office. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: There is a point of order being taken. If people want to remove themselves from the House to make their comments, perhaps on social media or some other such, they should do so, but don’t sit there chipping away while a point of order’s being made.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: My point of order is that if one was paying attention, on the fourth line of that question there is a grammatical mistake and it should have been corrected. That’s what standards in this House represent. I can see why that party’s shouting out.

Simon Court: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wish to draw to your attention that during a response that the Minister was giving to one of the supplementary questions, one of the members over here—I think it was Mr Ferris—made an accusation against the Government that the Government was racist. Mr Speaker, I’d just like to draw your attention to Standing Order 120, that that is an offensive and disorderly word which doesn’t just apply to the Government or Parliament but to all members. Mr Speaker, I’d like you to look into that, listen to the transcript, and see if that is worthy of action.

SPEAKER: I’d like the member to start his point of order again and the House will be silent listening to it.

Simon Court: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d just like to draw your attention to the fact that I overheard, during the response from Minister Chhour to one of the supplementary questions, a member to my right, who I understand is Mr Ferris, make an accusation that the Government or that the House is racist. I’d just like you to look into that, look at the transcript, and consider the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings that may relate to that matter.

SPEAKER: Thank you. Well, there was so much barracking going on during that answer that I didn’t actually hear any particular part of that barracking, but if any member did make that statement, then they should honourably stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Steve Abel: Speaking to the point of order, can you consider that there may be systemic actions being taken by the Government that are racist and that that is different from a personal accusation that someone is racist?

SPEAKER: No, with all due respect, that’s not something that I can make a decision about. Thank you for your contribution, but it doesn’t take away from the fact that if there is a general statement made that members of this House are racist, that is contrary to the Standing Orders. I know what you’re suggesting—

Steve Abel: No, no—he said the Government was racist.

SPEAKER: —but I’m thinking about what he—I’d ask the member to take a seat. I’ve asked anybody who made that statement to withdraw and apologise. I’m not naming anybody who might have, because I didn’t hear it, but what I am going to do is ask the Hon Karen Chhour to stand and give her answer again in silence. Well, she won’t be silent, of course, but the rest of the House will be. We’re all quiet now.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I’m not going to apologise for not accepting the status quo and I’m not going to keep spending more and more money and allowing the outcomes to be worse. This Government needs to get more disciplined when it comes to our spending and make sure that there’s accountability for contract spending, and I won’t apologise for putting the focus on young people.

Question No. 10—Health

10. to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about increasing childhood vaccination rates?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last week, my colleague the Hon Casey Costello and I announced a pilot to boost childhood immunisation rates by training the Plunket workforce’s vaccinators. Enabling Plunket to deliver vaccinations allows us to reach into locations where vaccine coverage has been particularly low. That is why this announcement is a key part of our plan to increase vaccinations and builds on the work that we already have under way. We know that timely immunisations ensure that our children will be protected against harmful and avoidable diseases. We’ll continue to reduce the barriers that have prevented parents from getting their children immunised, to continue driving the target of 95 percent of children being vaccinated at 24 months of age.

Catherine Wedd: Why did the Government select Plunket to carry out this important work?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This was a common-sense decision. With their existing clinical infrastructure and professional networks, Plunket was well placed to put this funding to use. Immunisation services will be established at up to 27 Plunket sites across the country, with the first site in Whangārei expected to be delivering vaccinations by the end of 2024. I want to thank Plunket for all of the work they do to drive better health outcomes and for the new work they will be undertaking through this initiative.

Catherine Wedd: What else has the Government done to boost immunisation rates for children?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We are absolutely committed to improving childhood immunisation rates. The Government has already invested $50 million into two years to boost immunisations, which is currently delivering twice above target. We’re working to expand the vaccination workforce so that people can get immunised wherever they choose to access healthcare. We are determined to make it as easy as possible for parents to get their children vaccinated, because we know that vaccines can save lives.

Catherine Wedd: Why is the Government focused on health targets?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The past six years has shown the consequence of taking the focus off health targets. In 2017, over 92 percent of children were fully immunised at 24 months old. This number has since fallen to 76.5 percent—that is a long way from our target of 95 percent. Amidst topical concerns of potential measles and whooping cough flare-ups, we could not continue to allow this rate to fall when young New Zealanders are getting ill with vaccine-preventable diseases.

Question No. 11—Prime Minister

11. 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, and especially the action that we’re taking through fast-track legislation. New Zealand needs more homes, it needs more infrastructure, more renewable energy, more jobs, and more growth. That’s why I was so pleased to see the scheduled fast-track projects potentially allowing for 55,000 new homes; 3 gigawatts of renewable electricity, or 30 percent of our current electricity generation; and 180 kilometres of new road, rail, and public transport routes. It’s probably why Forsyth Barr last week said that New Zealand was moving out of the slow lane and that the contours of an economic recovery are starting to take shape. I’d just encourage the member and her party to support the bill, just like the Environmental Defence Society does.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister truly feel that he has done everything in his power to demonstrate to Israel that there will be consequences for its murder of at least 42,000 Palestinian people?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes. This is a Government that has consistently called on all parties to de-escalate. The violence and the loss of life in Israel, in Gaza, and in Lebanon is absolutely horrific. That is why we have been reiterating and calling for all parties to agree to a ceasefire on the Lebanon-Israel border but also with Israel and Gaza too.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has he seen on the news or in his newsfeed the video of an Israeli airstrike hitting the grounds of al-Aqsa hospital in Gaza, where flames engulf tents that were sheltering forcibly displaced Palestinian people, and the screams could be heard of civilians being burned alive, and can he truly say, in the face of all of that, that his Government is doing absolutely everything that it can?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I have seen those images; they are absolutely horrific. This conflict has catastrophic consequences on innocent civilians that are horrific. It is violence and a loss of life on a scale that is unacceptable. That is why what we are doing is urging all parties to de-escalate, to get around a table, to negotiate, to discuss, and to agree to a ceasefire.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What exactly is the point in those numerous international statements that the Prime Minister alludes to if there is no follow-through whatsoever when the Israeli State can attack a hospital sheltering civilians, with no consequences?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: New Zealand, as a small country at the end of the world, is doing everything it can. By partnering with other like-minded countries, we’re putting more volume and voice to our perspective and to our position.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will he, then, follow other like-minded countries who have, for example, imposed sanctions on Israel?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, New Zealand has already put in place travel bans on Israeli extremist settlers, for example. Our most effective channel right now is actually communication—clear and consistent communication. That’s exactly what the foreign Minister and I have been doing over the last year.

Chlöe Swarbrick: When will the Prime Minister expel the Israeli ambassador?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we believe in maintaining diplomatic channels to actually communicate our differences. That’s important. Our position is that the most important thing that we can do right now is to be clear and consistent in our communication. We’ve clearly outlined that to the Israeli ambassador yesterday, with respect to the attacks on the UN system. We’ll continue to make our views known. We also consistently constantly review our approach and the settings that we have.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Yeah, and you’re doing nothing.

SPEAKER: Question 12—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What are you doing?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Asking you to do something. You’re in power.

SPEAKER: Hang on a minute—that’s enough. Question No. 12, the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Use it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Posturing all the time.

SPEAKER: No, sorry, hang on. Do both members want to perhaps go out to the side galleries to have a discussion?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, thanks.

Hon Willie Jackson: She’s too young for you, Winston!

SPEAKER: Right, we’ll try again. Who made that comment? This is absolutely childish. I would ask the member to withdraw and apologise, but it would only call attention to the stupid statement he made.

Question No. 12—Conservation

12. to the Minister of Conservation: Does he stand by his statement that his Government is committed to “restoring the health and mauri of the Hauraki Gulf/Tīkapa Moana” and that this will “enhance the area for generations to come”; if so, why is he proposing to allow commercial fishing in high protection areas?

E te Māngai o te Whare. Kei te mihi atu ki ngā pōito o te kūpenga a Taramainuku.

[To the Speaker, I acknowledge the people of the Hauraki Gulf.]

The Government is establishing strong safeguards to deliver the highest ever level of protection for Tīkapa Moana—the Hauraki Gulf—nearly tripling the area protected. It’s a major win for the taiao—for the environment. Fishing will be limited in two out of 19 newly protected areas to a small number of fishers in very small waka between March and August to supply local communities, many of whom suffered through the cost of living crisis and don’t have easy access to fish protein.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What has changed to justify allowing commercial fishing in high protection areas (HPAs) since the Environment Committee’s report on the bill in June this year, which stated that “The proposed protection areas are the result of an extensive consultation period … we do not recommend they be changed.”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As you will be aware, as Cabinet and Cabinet committees, we take a wide range of advice and opinions, and we believe we’ve struck the right balance between the economy, the environment, communities, iwi, and the people who live around Tīkapa Moana. And as a result, we’ve made some minor changes, but 95 percent of the legislation, as introduced, will be put to Parliament and be approved with minor changes.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Does he agree with Kayla Kingdon-Bebb from the World Wildlife Fund, who said that over 80 percent of commercial fishing is exported, and, if so, how will this change benefit those local communities he mentioned and as Shane Jones has claimed.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I agree with the Environmental Defence Society, who has said in the last 48 hours that the actions of this Government to progress this Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill are simply fantastic. Ditto Sue Neureuter, one of the owners of The Noises, Ōtata/Motu Horopapa, who has said it’s absolutely great news that we’re progressing the nearly tripling of the protected areas of the Hauraki Gulf/Tīkapa Moana.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Does the Minister accept that allowing any fishing in a high protection area undermines its protected status and compromises the restoration and the recovery of biodiversity, which is the very purpose of designating an HPA?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As I’ve mentioned before, we have balanced the various interests, taken on a wide range of advice and opinion, and if the person who has asked that question was so invested in the outcome of this solution, the majority Labour Government would have passed this in the last term.

Hon Shane Jones: To the Minister: does he see value in inviting Mr Gary Taylor to a meeting, given that he seems to be the only one with a coherent view that this is a massive step forward for the Hauraki Gulf, unlike the banshee voices blighting us at the moment?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’ve heard from many environmental—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Those of us with a background and knowledge of Irish history will know that that term was clearly used as a slight on the member that has been asking questions up to that point, and it should not be tolerated. There was no ambiguity around that, sir. It was not framed in a way that was discussed previously, around the borderline suggestion of corruption. That was a straight-out personal attack on a member of this House; he should be made to withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I would ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

Hon Shane Jones: Speaking to the point of order, sir, it is not unreasonable to deploy vocabulary that has wide application. At no point in that statement did I single out a member in the House. There are a wide variety of voices that are blighting the environment and spreading misinformation about the future health of Hauraki Gulf; at no time did I point or isolate a single member in this House. Over the last few days, there have been multiple voices of misinformation, and some of them have a phantom-like quality.

SPEAKER: Look, I’ll have to have a—

Hon Nicola Willis: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Is there something that’s really going to add to all this?

Hon Nicola Willis: Well, I’ve just got the definition of “banshee”, for the information of the House—

SPEAKER: Oh well, that’s very good. I don’t need it, thank you. I’ll be making inquiries myself and will come back on this particular issue to make sure that we do get it right. Apologies for not doing something now.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: In response to the question, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: Tama Potaka—yes, you can answer the first part of the question.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There have been innumerable environmentalists, iwi leaders, and others who have congratulated us on our announcement and on progressing the nearly tripling of the protected areas of Hauraki Gulf—Tīkapa Moana—and doing more than ever before to enhance the mauri and restore the health and wellbeing of that great place, that iconic place, that we know as the Hauraki Gulf.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Does the Minister accept that significantly weakening protections for the Hauraki Gulf at the eleventh hour, 11 years into the process, is a slap in the face for Aucklanders and those who were part of the Sea Change process?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I won’t get into hyperbole competitions today, but what I will say is this. It is that we are absolutely dedicated to progressing legislation, that was left marooned by the previous Government, to its logical conclusion, which is elevating and nearly tripling the amount of protected areas in the Hauraki Gulf—Tīkapa Moana, Te Moana-nui-a-Toi-te-huatahi [the Hauraki Gulf, the Bay of Plenty.] Tihei mauri ora!

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. Now, we’ll take 30 seconds while members go about their other business. Just leave the House without the discussions, thank you. [Interruption] I’m about to call a member. The discussion there is not helpful.