Oral Questions

1. 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?]

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, and in particular the successful conclusion of the negotiations for the New Zealand - United Arab Emirates closer economic partnership agreement, which is great news for our exporters and our economy. I would wish to congratulate the Minister for Trade for the record four-month gap between negotiations commencing and this conclusion being drawn.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What actions has his Government taken to comply with the recent United Nations General Assembly resolution, which Aotearoa New Zealand supported on the international stage, which calls on all states to, among other things, implement sanctions against people carrying out Israel’s unlawful presence in Palestine?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, our Government has consistently supported peace in the region. We’ve had a clear and sensible position in which we have been calling for ceasefire for months. We’ve called for Hamas to release the hostages; we’ve called for Israel to meet its obligations under international law and to facilitate safe and unimpeded humanitarian access for aid delivery. And as the member says, we’ve voted in support of the UN resolution to broaden Palestine’s participation in the UN General Assembly. Our actions on this matter have been ongoing.

Chlöe Swarbrick: When will the Government sanction Israel in accordance with the United Nations General Assembly resolution, which the Prime Minister just acknowledged Aotearoa New Zealand supported, on the international stage?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I’m not sure that the resolution did call for New Zealand specifically to take any specific actions of the nature that the member describes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has the Government requested any advice on sanctioning Israel for its unlawful presence in Palestine or upholding any of the other recommendations as agreed to in that United Nations General Assembly resolution?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, Ministers take continuous advice on matters of foreign affairs and they’re in constant engagement on matters of foreign affairs.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Are we then left with the understanding that this Government is doing or has done absolutely nothing to fulfil that UN resolution that we supported internationally?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. As I said, New Zealand has consistently supported peace in the region, been calling for a ceasefire for months, and have been calling for Hamas to release hostages, for Israel to meet its obligations under international law to facilitate safe and unimpeded humanitarian access for aid delivery. Our position has been consistent over a number of months.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Government condemn the violent aggression and escalation that Israel is undertaking, resulting in civilian casualties in Lebanon; and if so, what if anything is it doing about it?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, we have long called for a ceasefire in the region. We’re urging all sides to show restraint and take steps towards de-escalation. We’ve issued three statements since last year with Australia and Canada, highlighting that a regional war would have disastrous consequences for the region and especially for civilians across the region. We’re now also urging New Zealanders to leave Lebanon and northern Israel, while commercial options remain available.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he stand by his statement yesterday, in reference to Mark Mitchell losing his responsibility for firearms, “I have tremendous faith in Mark Mitchell. I think he’s an outstanding Minister of Police and he’s doing an absolutely brilliant job.”, and why didn’t he express that same faith in Nicole McKee?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, in answer to the first part of the question, yes. Mark Mitchell is an outstanding individual and Minister. The characterisation that he was stripped of anything, that was inferred in the question yesterday, was wrong, and I have confidence in all of my Ministers, including Nicole McKee.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who does he agree with: Winston Peters, who said, “The minister of foreign affairs does not consult with coalition partners on the literally hundreds of UN General Assembly resolutions that are considered each year”, or David Seymour, who wants to be consulted on all UN resolutions and said, “We expect a more open dialogue in the future.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and David Seymour would agree with me that when it comes to major changes in New Zealand’s foreign policy, then there will be a Cabinet discussion of those. The nature of UN resolutions is that they are very frequent. That will not occur in all cases.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who is correct: David Seymour, who speculated that private enterprise should either contract or just take over completely the Interislander ferry, or Winston Peters, who, when asked if he would prefer rail-enabled State-owned ferries, replied, “Of course I would.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I can assure the member that both Winston Peters and David Seymour share the Government’s interest in ensuring that there are safe, reliable ferry services over the Cook Strait into the future. That is the discussion that Cabinet is having, and we will ensure that we make an announcement shortly.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who is correct: Christopher Luxon, who said, “We’ve ended up creating a whole new series of addictions to nicotine that I think we’ll regret very strongly”, David Seymour, who said, “The Government is the biggest nicotine addict.”, or Casey Costello, who said the Government is “not necessarily anti-nicotine”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, common to all of those statements is a view that we want fewer people smoking in this country, and if that member wants to do a series of questions playing spot the difference between the quotes, then shall we start a game of spot the difference between the tax policies? Because, boy oh boy, I’ve lost count of how many different views there are from the members opposite.

SPEAKER: When questions are about to be heard, stop the discussions.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who is correct: Nicola Grigg, who on Suffrage Day said, “We must make sure we continue to progress this legacy to continue the fight for gender equality and improving the lives of women in New Zealand.”, or the Hon Nicola Willis, who disestablished the pay equities task force?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, both of those women are correct, and both of those women are members of a Cabinet that will be doing more for women than the last Government, which saw the cost of living increase for women, saw that their ability to have choices and opportunities in their futures was reduced by poor economic management, and oversaw a situation in which, despite spending billions and billions of dollars more, did not see an improvement in the services which women and men received.

SPEAKER: I’ll just make the point that drowning out an answer really does make me think what the point was in allowing the question.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who is to blame for the “coalition of chaos”: the current Deputy Prime Minister, who acts as a handbrake, the man who is replacing him in six months—

SPEAKER: No, I’ll tell you what: start again. There’s been lots and lots of concern from the Opposition about various descriptions being put on other political parties, including your own. I’d suggest the member starts the question without the particular description at the preface of it.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who is to blame for the coalition’s differing of opinions and the chaos that has ensued: the current Deputy Prime Minister; the man who will replace the Deputy Prime Minister in six months’ time; the finance Minister, who has stalled at the lights; or the Prime Minister, who is clearly still driving with his L-plates on?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, those who like to spend a lot of time on Treasure Island probably shouldn’t be talking about L-plates.

SPEAKER: When we’re ready.

Hon Simeon Brown: Give her another holiday!

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: 大家下午好，快乐的中文周.What are the elements of New Zealand’s public finance system?

There are a number of elements. First, there is legislation, in particular the Public Finance Act. Second, there are conventions that have been accepted and used by successive Governments. New Zealand’s fiscal management approach, for example, is a non-legislative framework that includes public finance concepts such as fixed nominal baselines, contingencies, and allowances. Finally, Governments make their own decisions about how to structure and present their finances, and typically those decisions are outlined in Budget documents such as the Fiscal Strategy Report or Budget Policy Statement.

Sam Uffindell: Is she intending to propose changes to the Public Finance Act?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. I’ve said previously that I will enact a public finance amendment bill in this parliamentary term. This bill will have a particular focus on fiscal risks but also include other changes to strengthen transparency and fiscal responsibility.

Sam Uffindell: Has she already made changes to the public finance system?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, many changes. For example, we got rid of hundreds of pages of verbiage from the Budget documents this year, including knocking the previous Government’s branding exercises on the head. The previous Government introduced a cluster system, where some groups of agencies were collectively funded for a three-year period. We have ended that because it did not work. We discontinued the previous Government’s Climate Emergency Response Fund. Many of the spending decisions made under the banner of climate purposes did not represent good value for money from an emissions-reduction or a taxpayer-value perspective, and we are sticking much more closely to the operating allowance concept in the fiscal management approach by actually intending to keep to future allowances—a novel idea to those on the other side of the House.

Sam Uffindell: Is the Government reviewing any other aspects of the public finance system?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, we are, including the structure and use of capital allowances. In 2019, the previous Government introduced the multi-year capital allowance, or MYCA, to reflect new capital funding available over multiple Budgets. This was rather grandiosely trumpeted at the time as the wellbeing approach in action. In practice, however, the previous Government simply made large annual increases to the MYCA and immediately allocated those increases. This almost entirely defeated the purpose of a longer-term capital allowance. I said in the Fiscal Strategy Report in May that the Treasury will be reviewing the capital allowance framework, including the MYCA, and I’m expecting to receive that advice before the end of the year.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Mr Speaker, there’s no way that the answer to that question could be deemed to be a reflection of advice that the Minister has seen or information that would be objective. That was her interpretation and a political bent on the situation, and I don’t think that’s appropriate, particularly for a patsy question from her own side.

SPEAKER: Well, look, I will take another look at that, obviously, but I was listening—

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It couldn’t have been drier!

SPEAKER: Excuse me. I was listening very carefully, and the primary question is: what are the elements of New Zealand’s public finance system? There were two supplementaries following that, before the third supplementary, which you are concerned about. I will take a look at it and see where we’re at, because it is a fact that the Government should not be asking itself supplementary questions designed to attack the Opposition. They can refer to previous Government programmes and the effect that it has on current policy—it’s long been the case. I did mention this to the House a short time ago. Clearly, some advisers have not read that.

Question No. 4—Agriculture

4. to the Associate Minister of Agriculture: What recent reports has he seen about the welfare of farm animals in Southland?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have seen news reports and heard from farmers down there that it has been an extraordinarily challenging winter, and now spring, for animals and farmers alike due to high rainfall and late snows. This has led to higher than normal losses and there have been issues brought to the attention of Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) animal welfare inspectors. In a recent example where photos of dead sheep were publicised, inspectors found that the farmer had shifted animals to dry paddocks in the aftermath of an unexpected weather event and placed those sheep there where they were later filmed. The plan for the farmer was to go back later and pick them up after checking on the welfare of all the other animals on the farm. I am advised that MPI inspectors were satisfied that the farmer had taken appropriate steps to safeguard the welfare of their animals.

Mark Cameron: What feedback has he received from farmers on how they are coping with the situation?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: From talking to a number of Southland farmers, I know that they are feeling the pressure right now. I personally have farmed through droughts, floods, snowfalls, and windstorms but the worst mentally has always been a couple of occasions where it has just rained non-stop for months on end. Relentless rainfall throws up so many challenges for farmers, who are always focused on doing their best for their stock. This Government cares about animals and farmers, and I know that trying to come up with solutions in these conditions is one of the hardest parts of farming. And yet each day, they get up, they put the wet weather gear back on, and work out a plan to get through to tomorrow and look after the cows and sheep.

Mark Cameron: What can farmers do to look after the welfare of their animals and themselves in such challenging conditions?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Well, there’s an old adage: “A problem shared is a problem halved”, and this is so true. There are a number of organisations that can offer an ear to listen—but also just leaning over the gate and talking to your neighbour about how they are going. They may have a good idea to share in terms of how they are looking after their animals, or it can just be a morale boost to realise that you aren’t the only one struggling. Everyone is in the same boat and, actually, you’re doing pretty well. Feeling a bit better about yourself will help with better decision-making and the motivation to get back into it.

Mark Cameron: Are conditions in Southland expected to improve?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Well, unfortunately, the weather forecast for today is rain, hail, and snow down to 300 metres for Gore. We can only hope that farmers down there will see a few weeks of respite coming up soon. In terms of what the Government can do, I’m afraid we can’t legislate for bringing on summer any quicker or guarantee that it will be a mild one. I know in the past they’ve tried to bring daylight savings forward. It didn’t really work. MPI’s on-farm support team can work with farmers to provide them with good information and make connections to other organisations who can help. The vast majority of farmers are giving it their all at the moment to look after their livestock. For the few that may not be, MPI’s compliance team are also responding to calls, working with farmers, undertaking proactive action and, where warranted, will initiate prosecutions.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: That was long.

SPEAKER: Yes, it was.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: 谢谢, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by her statement, “On this side of the House, we take economic management extremely seriously”; if so, do her decisions to date reflect this?

Yes, and I take all decisions seriously.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Isn’t it the case that outside of the 2020 COVID year, the last time there was an operating balance before gains and losses (OBEGAL) deficit of at least 3.1 percent, which is forecast for 2025, was in 2012?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It is correct that New Zealand currently faces a structural deficit of significant proportions. Our Government inherited a situation where the last Government had charged up the credit card to the max, unsustainably, and we are now in the position of course correcting, and we had set a very clear plan that it will allow the books to return to an OBEGAL surplus in 2027/28. If we had stuck to the spending plans of the last Government, that date would have been pushed out until 2031, an unacceptable outcome.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Isn’t it the case that the last time that unemployment was greater than 5.4 percent, which is now predicted for June 2025, was in September 2015?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As has been well canvassed in this House, New Zealand finds itself in extremely challenging economic circumstances. We have had three years of a cost of living crisis in which inflation was allowed to be maintained outside of the band. Not only did that increase costs for New Zealanders, what we saw was interest rates then had to rise extremely high and quickly in response. That has strangled the economy. Now, members opposite had a choice as interest rates were rising at that rate. They could have sat down and said, “We better get disciplined about our spending.” Members opposite chose not to and have worsened the economic situation that New Zealand now finds itself in and we are cleaning it up.

SPEAKER: Keep everything fairly succinct.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Isn’t it the case that the additional interest cost of the $12 billion of additional borrowing in Budget 2024 will be $4.3 billion?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I am very pleased that the member is getting her head around the impacts of high debt, because that is the same member who went on Radio New Zealand and said that she thought the New Zealand Government should be borrowing more. So get your position aligned and stick with us, which is that we want to get back into surplus quicker so we can reduce debt.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. As theatrical as that was, it actually didn’t address the question. It was a pretty straightforward question and—[Interruption] Excuse me—in silence, points of order. I know you’re rattled, but give us a chance. Mr Speaker, it was a very—

SPEAKER: No, just wait. Points of order are heard in silence and responses like that are not acceptable.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The response didn’t actually address what was a very straightforward question, and it was straight into a political statement aimed at the member who asked the question. Now, I get it, totally. The whole House understands if it is a loaded question, fair game; and if it is a broad question, then, you lead with your chin, you’re probably going to get hit. But, in that instance, it was a very straightforward question.

SPEAKER: Yeah, but it did refer to, I think, 2015 in that particular case, which does take it back into the time of the previous Government and would invite a suspected response along the lines that it got. But I tell you what—just ask the question again.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Isn’t it the case that the additional interest cost of the $12 billion of additional borrowing in Budget 2024 will be $4.3 billion?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It is true that interest costs that incur when New Zealand is living beyond its means are significant. This is of concern to the Government, and that is why we are taking such efforts to restrain spending and get it back under control after several years in which spending rose dramatically as a proportion of GDP and was unfunded, leading New Zealand to borrow for the groceries, leaving us with massive interest bills for our Government debt.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she reconcile shifting $30 million that was for te reo Māori education to fund maths when she could have just given the $216 million tobacco tax break to cover both and more?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On this side of the House we wish to see the revitalisation of te reo Māori. I understand from the Minister of Education that the programme to which the member refers was not able to provide conclusive evidence of an increase in the achievement in te reo Māori by children in New Zealand classrooms, and we are going to continue to ensure that te reo Māori instruction is available to educators, including through the many free programmes offered through tertiary providers.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: When will she take responsibility for the cancellation of a major piece of infrastructure without advice on an alternative—

Hon Shane Jones: Light rail.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: —including any sort—

SPEAKER: Hang on—you can start your question again. When a question’s being asked, please try and hold those interesting comments that you’re offering to the House to yourself.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: When will she take responsibility for the cancellation of a major piece of infrastructure without advice on an alternative, including any sort of cost-benefit analysis, which is the very opposite of careful economic management?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I have and will take responsibility for the fact that when this Government assumed office, we were handed a basket case otherwise known as project iReX, whose cost had blown out of a number of months. Faced with a decision early in our Government as to whether or not we should add more funding to that fire, and given a very challenging deadline within which to do that, we took the advice of our officials, who said that this dog don’t hunt.

Question No. 6—Education

6. to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about supporting the teaching of maths?

This Government will be delivering high-quality, curriculum-aligned maths resources and supports for teachers and students, delivered from term 1 next year. Funding of $30 million will fund student workbooks, teacher guides, and lesson plans in our primary and intermediate schools and they’ll be available in English and te reo Māori. More than half a million year 0 to 8 students and their teachers will benefit. This is alongside a knowledge-rich curriculum, and $20 million in professional learning and development to support our teachers, reduce workload, and lift student achievement in mathematics.

Mike Butterick: What prompted her to deliver these supports to schools?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Just 22 percent of our year 8 students are at the expected standard for maths and around half of our students are not able to pass a foundational NCEA co-requisite assessment in numeracy. I was also concerned by the fact that there is a lack of high-quality curriculum-aligned maths resources available in te reo Māori. Today’s announcement sees the equitable access of instructional maths resources for teachers and tamariki in te reo Māori. These high-quality resources will support teachers to implement the new curriculum and to help kids practise and master the knowledge and the skills they need to excel in maths.

Mike Butterick: What will this mean for teachers?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, this will reduce the workload for teachers by providing them with both curriculum-aligned resources so they don’t always have to create their own teacher guides to support introducing the new curriculum content, and it will mean that every single teacher will have access to these resources for themselves and their students in te reo Māori and English, rather than just the schools that can afford them, so that we can raise achievement and close the equity gap for all children in mathematics across New Zealand.

Mike Butterick: What’s next for schools?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Approved suppliers will be published on the Ministry of Education’s website no later than 18 October for schools to choose which resources and supports they may like to order. Schools may wish to choose different resources for upper primary compared to lower primary, depending on their needs. Orders placed by 4 November will see schools receiving their new resources in time for term 1. I’m delighted to be funding this for all students and all schools who want access to this wonderful maths support.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why did she take $30 million from support for teachers to learn te reo Māori, an official language of New Zealand, rather than from David Seymour’s pet education project?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: We made sure that we have kept available te reo Māori for our bilingual and kura kaupapa kaiako, but it is really important that the $100 million that we’ve spent over the last three years was 2.3 times more expensive than other, similar courses offered free of charge. There was anywhere between a 50 and 60 percent completion rate; it was not NZQA accredited; there were no qualifications gained; there was no evidence of improved student outcomes. We can contract much better than this because we are committed to the revitalisation of te reo Māori.

Question No. 7—Māori Development

7. to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Ni hao and kia orana. Āna—yes. I particularly stand by the actions we’ve taken to reduce the number of households in emergency housing. Earlier this week, I announced that the number of households in emergency housing has dropped by nearly 60 percent between December 2023 and August this year. Many of the households who have left emergency housing are Māori, as many of the 1,311 tamariki who have left emergency housing as a result of priority-one decision-making made by this Government.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: As the Minister for Māori Development who is proud to be Māori, how can he justify being part of a Government that is disestablishing Te Aka Whai Ora, cutting $300 million of targeted Māori funding, repealing section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, the confiscation of our coastlines, rejecting the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, defunding section 27 reports, restoring three strikes—just about there—removing Te Mana o te Wai, and setting in motion a wave of anti-Māori sentiment by giving life to the Treaty principles bill?

SPEAKER: It’s not appropriate to use a question to question the integrity of a Minister or any member in this House. You can ask a question about actions they are taking inside their ministry, which I appreciate is the thrust of your question, but the start of it was not in order.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order. In addition to the point you made—I mean, I thought there was a very standard rule that questions could not include assertions. And that question was full of assertions that we would contest entirely.

SPEAKER: Yes, it’s a difficult word “assertion”. If we used it in application for both questions and answers the House would be practically mute.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’m very proud to be part of a Cabinet that has more Māori members than any other Cabinet in New Zealand’s history. What I’d also acknowledge is the progress that Minister Metekōura—Minister Goldsmith—is making on various Treaty settlements, such as Te Korowai o Wainuiārua and Taranaki Maunga; also the funding for Matatini that Minister Willis—the Manu Pūtea—has supported over the next three years; also the progress that the Ō-Rākau bill has made by Minister Potaka; and also getting hundreds of tamariki Māori out of emergency housing. I’ve got to say, some of these questions are like a hāngī on repeat, reheat.

SPEAKER: And that wasn’t an appropriate comment either.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Do all of these cuts and repeals constitute Māori development or Māori regression?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’m very proud of the progress being made by this Government to get the country back on track around the economy, law and order, education, housing, small and medium enterprises, emergency housing, and a whole range of other portfolios.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait for the conversation to end over here.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: How can he justify the Government’s decision to cut $30 million on Te Ahu o te Reo Māori, a programme that develops te reo Māori among our kaiako, immediately after te Wiki o te Reo Māori?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I can reflect on some of the comments that have been made by both Minister Willis and Minister Stanford in relation to this matter, and acknowledge also that there are various free courses offered through universities, wānanga like Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, and various other methods through our community. Those avenues and pathways are open for the teachers to school themselves up on te reo Māori and celebrate our language as a for ever language—ake, ake, ake.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does he agree that the actions of his Government constitute ethnocide, the deliberate and systematic—[Interruption] Hold! Hold! Just taihoa! Tatari!—destruction—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: —of an ethnic group?

SPEAKER: Just a moment. Questions will be heard in silence. But questions that make an allegation or even ask a question like that—it’s outside the bounds of what would be reasonable inside the House. There are other ways of asking a question, and I’d invite the member to perhaps have a quick think about that and ask a supplementary that might get the same answer but with a different front end to it.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Thank you, Mr Speaker—does he agree that the actions of this Government constitute deculturation, the deliberate and systematic destruction of Māori culture?

SPEAKER: No, look, I’m sorry, that’s not in order either.

Hon Members: Why not?

SPEAKER: If you have a look—who asked that?

Hon David Parker: Point of order.

SPEAKER: No, no—it’s not a point of order from you; I’m dealing with a ruling at the moment. If the member looks at the Standing Orders around what can be asked in the question, you cannot put into a question an assertion of that nature. So do you want one more go?

Hon David Parker: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order, sir, is that the member wasn’t making an assertion; she was asking whether the Minister agreed that that was a proper summary of the effect of Government policies, and that is a proper question. The Government doesn’t have to agree with it, but it is a proper question be able to be asked in this House.

Hon Simeon Brown: Point of order.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, Hon Simeon Brown.

Hon Simeon Brown: Well, Mr Speaker, I mean, I think there’s a particular—the word “ethnocide” has significant meaning and I think there is offence taken from this side of the House, and we’d ask her not just to not use it but to withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: We’ve actually dealt with that. We’ve moved on from it.

Hon Simeon Brown: My point of order is in relation to the fact that she used that word—

SPEAKER: Yes, I know that.

Hon Simeon Brown: —in a prior question—

SPEAKER: Yes, I’m well aware of that.

Hon Simeon Brown: —and you’ve addressed the use of it but not in relation to her—

SPEAKER: I’ve spoken to her about it and we’ve dealt with it. The Hon Shane Jones.

Hon Shane Jones: My point of order, sir, is slightly different. Standing Order 390 shows that you are quite right.

SPEAKER: Well, there you go—red letter day; I’ll clock that one up.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. Standing Order 390 talks about statements of facts and arguments and fairness and imputations. But, as David Parker mentioned, actually what the member was simply doing is asking a question, and, whether it’s inflammatory or otherwise, it was not an assertion, it was a question. So I don’t actually think that Standing Order 390 applies here.

SPEAKER: That’s right, but it’s me who judges that. And I would say that imputation is another aspect of that question. I’m inviting the member to ask her question in a different way, and I’m sure she can do that.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does he agree that the actions of this Government constitute harm and poverty and such things that impact on Māori katoa o te motu [all Māori of the country]?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: This Government acknowledges the severe inequalities of opportunity that confront Māori communities, and cohorts within Māori communities, both in the social space and the economic space. Hence, we’re absolutely focused—ruthlessly focused, in fact—on a variety of targets, such as improving Māori school attendance and Māori achievement in education, making sure that we reduce the number of Māori living in emergency households, and a number of other initiatives. My focus, as is with a number of my colleagues, is to ensure that Māori economic development, Māori social development, is supported and improved so we can all say, actually, there is an equality of opportunity here in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Question No. 8—Police

8. to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by his commitment that if Associate Minister of Justice Nicole McKee brings an option to Cabinet that proposes to scrap the firearms registry then he will block it; if not, why not?

I stand by the commitment made in the coalition agreement with ACT to review whether the firearms registry is effectively improving public safety, and I stand by my role as Minister of Police to advocate for police around the Cabinet table. No such paper has been brought to Cabinet; therefore, such a question would be hypothetical.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with Nicole McKee regarding his commitment to block a Cabinet option that would scrap the registry, “No Minister can make that decision by themselves, either myself or Mark Mitchell, and we are part of a coalition Government.”; if not, why not?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, I completely support and agree with her statement, and I’d go further to say that we are both working very closely together with a focus on public safety. She is a firearms safety expert and she is bringing all that knowledge to bear in terms of making sure that, actually, we make our country safer, because in the last five or six years, we’ve gone backwards severely in terms of public safety, especially in relation to illegal firearms.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is TV3 correct that ACT has “spoken to him behind the scenes”—

SPEAKER: Sorry. Sorry, just ask your question again.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is TV3 correct that ACT has “spoken to him behind the scenes and told him to stop speaking publicly about the firearms registry before the review is complete”?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, you’d have to ask TV3, but I’m pretty sure I’m talking publicly now about the registry. I just want to reinforce to that member, because although they are trying very hard on the other side, we are working together, we have a coalition agreement, we are reviewing whether the firearms registry is effectively improving public safety, and that is an important thing to do.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he consider it’s fair that he’s been told off for publicly speaking about the firearms registry before the review is complete when Nicole McKee has already stated, “I think the full A category licensing regime is not going to be effective. It’s going to be too costly and it’s going to make people fearful of their own safety.”?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I’d just say to the member again that it’s a bit like being in the school yard, isn’t it, people being told off? I don’t think anyone’s being told off. I think that this coalition Government has got a commitment to review the firearms registry to make sure that it is effective in delivering public safety, and I think that’s really important. I’d just reassure the member that I’m working very closely with my colleague Nicole McKee to make sure that we deliver that.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he consider that excluding A category firearms from the registry would weaken it, given that these rifles and shotguns currently account for 70 percent of all firearms seized by police from offenders?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I think the member is grasping at straws. There have been no papers taken to Cabinet at all for any decisions. The member is trying to fearmonger. She doesn’t, in my view, have a very good relationship with facts, whereas my colleague Minister Nicole McKee deals with facts. The work that we’re doing is focused on making sure that we reverse what’s happened to our country in the last five or six years and we get on a much better pathway in terms of public safety and firearms safety.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What did he mean when he stated on Newstalk ZB, “I can assure you, as the police Minister, the gun registry is going nowhere.”?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, again, I can tell the member that it is my job to advocate and advance the position of the police, and I can tell you now that the police are fully engaged in making sure that we support the review so Cabinet can be informed in terms of what we need to do to improve public safety, and that is what we are committed to.

Question No. 9—Justice

9. to the Minister of Justice: What actions is the Government taking to reduce the number of victims of crime?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Government’s taking many actions to reduce the number of victims of crime and put victims, not offenders, at the heart of the justice system. Last night, the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill passed its first reading, which will put more serious offenders in prison for longer to prevent them from creating new victims, and if time is spent in prison on remand, we will ensure that offenders have access to rehabilitation to prevent ongoing recidivism.

Miles Anderson: What specifically will the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill do to reduce the number of victims of crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, we’ve seen too many examples of people convicted of serious violent crime and sexual crimes having their sentences discounted significantly. The Government will cap those discounts at 40 percent. We’re also giving great prominence to victims’ interests at sentencing and reducing a number of new aggravating factors including a new aggravating factor for offences against public transport workers. Our bus drivers and train drivers shouldn’t have to suffer from mindless attacks as they do their job.

Miles Anderson: What actions is the Government taking to reduce the number of victims of cyber-crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, this week the Government has introduced the Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill. Eleven percent of New Zealanders were victims of fraud and cyber-crime in 2023, and this piece of legislation will align New Zealand with other international jurisdictions to make it easier for them to cooperate on criminal investigations. We’ll play our part in global efforts to frustrate and defeat the efforts of those who deceive and prey on vulnerable New Zealanders.

Miles Anderson: What commentary, if any, has he seen on restoring law and order to create fewer victims?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, last week I heard the comment, “Everybody wants a safe community. We should be tough on violent criminals. People who are violent criminals should be sentenced properly.” I agree with Dr Duncan Webb, and I’m glad that he now realises that things needed to change. This Government is taking steps to restore real consequences for crime and has set targets to reduce the number of victims of serious crime, and we’re working at pace to achieve that.

Question No. 10—Transport

10. to the Minister of Transport: Would the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits (2024) require councils to raise speed limits even where it may increase the risk of severe injury and death?

The land transport setting of speed limits rule is still under consideration and has not been finalised or signed. Section 164(2)(c) of the Land Transport Act 1998 requires the Minister to have regard to the level of risk existing to land transport safety in New Zealand when finalising the Government’s new speed limit rule. There are a range of factors that impact road safety. Our Government’s focus is on targeting the highest contributors to fatal crashes, including alcohol and drugs. We’ve set clear targets for Police to ensure they focus on the most high-risk times, behaviours, and locations. The interim regulatory impact analysis says that the “level of impact is difficult to quantify due to uncertainty about which roads would have speed limits increased and what impact those speed limit increases would have on operating speeds.” I assure the member that I will take safety into account as part of the process of finalising and signing the new rule.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will he reconsider his commitment to blanket speed limit increases now that he knows that the six countries he has referred to as having the lowest road deaths—Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the UK, Japan, Denmark—allow and actively encourage councils to extensively use safer speeds, like permanent 30kph speed limits in residential areas and 70 or 80kph on undivided, windy, rural highways?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: It’s a very interesting question because, of course, the member wrote to me, I think, yesterday about this issue, and there was an attachment to her letter, which says that in Norway the standard speed limit in urban areas is 50kph. In Sweden—ditto; 50kph is standard. Denmark—ditto; 50kph is standard. So the member is trying to make a point, but the information she’s provided to me, in my office, actually, I think, backs up what is in the proposed rule.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: So is the Minister denying that the European Transport Safety Council has provided evidence that there is extensive use of 30kph in many European cities, including cities in the countries he cited, in residential areas, and that the default speed limit on rural, windy, undivided highways is much lower than 100kph in those countries, and that has been a major part of them reducing road deaths, which is widely acknowledged around the world?

SPEAKER: Just ask the question, don’t add your little bit at the end.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I’m relying on—well, in my previous answer that I just gave—the information she provided to my office, and I’m happy to table the information that she actually wrote to me about yesterday, which says, in Norway, the standard speed limit in urban areas is 50kph. In Sweden—ditto. In Denmark—ditto. So, I mean, the point is that this Government is focused on the highest-risk times, locations, and behaviours on our roads. Alcohol and drugs are the highest-risk contributors to deaths on our roads. That’s why we’re ensuring the Police are consistently doing over 3 million breath tests on our roads. That’s why we’re introducing oral roadside drug testing. We’re taking road safety incredibly seriously.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: How many additional people being fatally or seriously injured does he believe is acceptable in order to save 14 to 20 seconds on an average 20-minute car journey?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, this Government is incredibly focused on road safety, and in terms of the number of actions this Government has under way to improve road safety, whether it’s making sure we actually ensure there’s enough alcohol breath tests happening on an annualised basis, because we know that alcohol and drugs are the highest contributors to deaths on our roads. And the reality is, in the last number of years, we have not had an adequate number of breath tests on our roads and we’ve had the road death toll continue to increase. This year, we’ve seen the road toll come down and, at the same time, we’ve seen the number of breath tests go up. We need to ensure we’re focused on the highest-risk times, locations, and behaviours rather than just blanket speed limits, like the last Government.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order. Mr Speaker, the Minister talked extensively about other things he believes will address the road toll, but he didn’t really address how many he thought was acceptable to accept additional deaths and serious injuries for very small time savings.

SPEAKER: You’re talking about road safety, and so it’s a bit hard to require the Minister to put a number on it and say this is the factor that we’re considering, when he’s just mentioned there are many other factors that are in consideration as well. Does the member have another supplementary?

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does the Minister believe that the chief trauma surgeon Dr Christopher Wakeman is wrong when he says, “If you hit a pedestrian at 30 kilometres an hour, there’s a 90 percent chance they survive the crash. If you hit at 50 kilometres an hour, there’s a 10 percent chance that they’ll survive.”, and, if not, why not?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, there are, of course, a range of factors which go into causing deaths and serious injuries on our roads, but the reality is that this Government is not going to just simply slow every New Zealander down to crawl around our cities and towns around this country, which is what the last Government wanted to do. The reality is that we are going to have a balanced approach to this issue, whereby we have slower speed limits around schools during pick-up and drop-off times, but it doesn’t make any sense to make a shift worker going to work at 4 o’clock in the morning have to crawl around their suburb at 30kph.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Mr Speaker, supplementary.

SPEAKER: No, the Green Party has used up all its allocation for today.

Question No. 11—Disability Issues

11. to the Minister for Disability Issues: Does she stand by her statement, “That is why we are prioritising disabled people, their families, and carers”; if so, why?

Yes. That’s why we provided a record $1.1 billion funding boost to disability support services in this year’s Budget. It’s also why we have taken immediate action to stabilise the disability support system after an independent review found that the Ministry of Disabled People, Whaikaha, was ill-prepared to deliver these services when it was established in 2022. That review found the delivery of disability services was in a dire state, with unsustainable spending and a lack of fairness and transparency around what support disabled people can access. Our Government is determined to build a fair, sustainable, high-quality disability support system that delivers better outcomes for disabled people, based on their needs.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How is she supporting disabled people when parents in their 60s and 70s are writing to her to say their disabled adult children were on the waiting list for residential homes but now have been told the list has been scrapped because of the Government’s funding freeze on residential care facilities?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: There is not a funding freeze on residential facilities. There is no admissions freeze on residential services. The needs assessment and service coordination centres (NASCs) are making decisions based on need and there are still residential spaces available.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How is she prioritising families when Rachel, a nurse and mum of a severely disabled child, who works a night shift to be able to care for her son during the day, has lost access to respite care because of her Government’s decision?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I know that it is incredibly challenging for families who are looking after disabled children. That is why it is absolutely critical that we have taken urgent action to stabilise the disability support service so that disabled people with the highest needs can continue to get fair and consistent access to the services they need.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why is the Ministry of Social Development suddenly no longer accessing telehealth autism diagnoses for adults despite evidence that it is robust and that for some, particularly in rural New Zealand, it is the only option to access support?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m standing here as the Minister of Disability Issues, and assessments around disability support services are done by the NASCs.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Is the Minister aware that the autism community is anxious that her Government will change the eligibility criteria for people with autism spectrum disorder, no longer enabling them to access disability support services; and, if so, can she confirm that she will not make that change?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I want to repeat what I said before. This Government has invested a boost of $1.1 billion extra funding into disability support services, because we know there are challenges ahead. What we must ensure, though, is that the support is targeted to those with the highest needs. There will be further work, recommended by the independent review panel, in stabilising the system. We must look at flexible funding, and the disability community will be engaged and consulted before any changes are made.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Who are New Zealanders meant to believe: a Minister who says she’s prioritising disabled people and families, or the hundreds of disabled people and families, some of whom, I understand, are in the gallery today, whose daily realities are very different and are urging her Government to stop their cost-cutting exercise and actually support them to be able to live with dignity?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: They can believe and have confidence in a Government that is investing an additional $1.1 billion in disability services, and not a member who completely disrespects their ability to understand that $1.1 billion of extra funding is not a cut. Unfortunately, we have a system that is broken. Our Government is going to fix it to ensure that those with the highest needs are able to access the services they require.

Question No. 12—Corrections

12. to the Minister of Corrections: How is the Department of Corrections delivering on his priorities?

My four priorities for the corrections portfolio are increasing staff safety, ensuring prison capacity, improving staffing levels, and reducing reoffending through effective rehabilitation. There is a significant investment in prison capacity, a strong recruitment pipeline, outstanding rehabilitation across the network, and I’m very proud of the work our Corrections front line does every day in relation to public safety.

Suze Redmayne: What improvements are being made to prison capacity?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Since September 2023, Corrections has reopened approximately 1,300 previously closed beds across the network. By the end of March next year, Corrections will reopen another 460. There’ll be an additional 600 beds added to Waikeria, as well as the Budget 2024 investment of over 810 more.

Suze Redmayne: How has recent legislative change supported rehabilitation?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The Corrections Amendment Bill, which passed last night, delivers on our coalition commitments. For the first time, remand, accused, and convicted prisoners will receive access to rehabilitation programmes. The coalition Government has invested $78 million to support this great initiative.

Suze Redmayne: How does a strong recruitment pipeline contribute to his priorities?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: For the first time in a long time, Corrections are now recruiting above the level of attrition. This means that we are starting to make progress on staff shortages. Our Corrections officers are supported by a significant investment in Budget ‘24 to deliver more effective, regular, and timely rehabilitation to prisoners, as well as ensure that the front line is well resourced and safer. I’m very proud of our Corrections front line, who aren’t always visible but do an outstanding job every day and have a key role to play in public safety.