Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the Government’s financial position?

The interim financial statements of the Government for the 11 months ended 31 May 2024 were released in July. They show core Crown tax revenue running slightly higher than was forecast for those 11 months in the Budget update. Core Crown expenses were slightly lower than expected. As a result, the operating balance before gains and losses, or OBEGAL as it is commonly known, was better than forecast in the Budget update though still in deficit, and net core Crown debt was slightly lower than had been anticipated.

Dan Bidois: When will the year-end financial statements be released?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The financial statements of the Government for the year ended 30 June 2024 are currently being finalised and audited. They are due to be released in just over two weeks’ time on 10 October.

Dan Bidois: What factors have affected the Government’s financial position?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Interest rates were high throughout the 2023/24 financial year. The Reserve Bank judged that this was necessary to constrain demand and therefore squeeze high inflation out of the economy. As a result, economic growth was low or negative in each quarter of 2023/24. These economic factors flow through to the Government’s financial position. Low growth has a negative effect on the Crown’s revenue, whereas high inflation tends to raise both its revenue and expenses. And, of course, the fiscal position for 2023/24 is affected by big spending decisions taken by the previous Government in 2023. The net result of all these factors will be reflected in the year-end financial statements.

Dan Bidois: What impact will the Government’s fiscal strategy have on its financial position?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: To bring revenue and expenses back into balance, the Government which came into office towards the middle of the 2023/24 financial year is focused squarely on controlling spending and restoring fiscal discipline. We are committed to reducing core Crown expenses as a proportion of GDP and returning to an OBEGAL surplus. With prudent control of spending, the Government does not see any need to seek major additional sources of revenue such as a wealth tax or a capital gains tax. Sound financial accounts are at the heart of good government. Our Government is committed to improving the books and is taking the steps necessary to do so.

Question No. 2—Regional Development

2. to the Minister for Regional Development: What announcements has he made about regional development?

Last week, the Deputy Prime Minister and I visited Ōpōtiki to mark the completion of new breakwater walls at Pākihikura, the Ōpōtiki Harbour. This development, started under the former Minister Steven Joyce and completed by Ministers including myself, represents the first major harbour built in New Zealand in decades. It reflects Government investment, boosting resilience; it will have a host of benefits, not only economic but addressing under-investment in a part of New Zealand where, sadly, much of the economy has passed them by.

Jenny Marcroft: How is the Government supporting better economic outcomes in the Eastern Bay of Plenty?

Hon SHANE JONES: The Eastern Bay of Plenty is an area where the Whakatōhea tribe is located, along with a host of other iwi with a proud history in te ao Māori. From time to time, the Crown, in order to address problems in the market will take a risk and make investments. An investment over the last six years was made in improving the resilience of the mussel industry in this part of Te Ika-a-Maui, the North Island. During our visit up there, it was confirmed that the Crown will continue to work with private sector, including the Craig investment group, the Whakatōhea tribe, a host of other Māori investors, to grow the platform of the mussel industry, to improve the prospects of the local community, but, as my leader said, most importantly, to deliver a message to the pakeke, the rangatira of that area. The Crown will take a modest risk from time to time, but Māori leadership must send a message to our own young people: the day of staying at home on the dole is over. If you do not work, society does not owe you a living.

Jenny Marcroft: How else is the Government supporting economic development in the Bay of Plenty?

Hon SHANE JONES: A regional summit was held in Whakatāne—well attended—at the Baptist Church building. It was attended by a host of people who were present to hear the words of salvation from my good self. Civic representatives turned up, various iwi representatives, and they bought a veritable collection plate of proposals. We shared with them that a host of Ministers, some more flinty than others, will consider the various co-investment proposals. But, most importantly, we expect regions themselves to be better organised and where there are opportunities for the Crown to de-risk projects; we want the resources; we want the opportunities in regions to be developed in such a way that it leads not only to employment but better resilience; and we want councils to ensure they are not putting barriers, impediments in the way of the private sector doing their own investments. I look forward, as I shared in Whakatāne, to productivity growing as a consequence of not only the extension of marine farming permits till 2050, but also the fast track—150-odd proposals.

Before the member asks another question, let’s remind the Minister of my advice to the House last week about the length of responses to questions from Ministers. So far, much as it may have been delivered in the form of a gospel, it is far too long. We’ll have one more try—Jenny Marcroft.

Jenny Marcroft: Why is the Government investing in the regions?

Hon SHANE JONES: It’s important that we spread the resources of the Crown in terms of the reforms that we are making, the opportunities that we support, and that we remind people that Parliament has to serve all of the regions—not just select professions, and not just the areas that have continually been supported by parties with narrow interests, such as the Green Party.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Yes, and especially our action to replace the Resource Management Act (RMA). The Minister responsible for RMA Reform, Chris Bishop, was right when he said on Friday that the RMA has become a vehicle to stifle growth, which is exactly why the Government has committed to replacing it. It comes as part of a wider programme of RMA reform, running from fast track to electrifying New Zealand and other changes to existing legislation. It’s all designed to clear away the barriers to the homes, the energy, exports, and jobs that New Zealand so desperately needs to thrive. We were committed to it before the election, and the good news is: now we’re all delivering.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why did he remove Mark Mitchell’s portfolio responsibility for firearms and give it to Nicole McKee, and what does that say about his confidence in Mark Mitchell when he thinks such a responsibility is better placed with a gun lobbyist?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I just say I have tremendous faith in Mark Mitchell. I think he’s an outstanding Minister of Police and he’s doing an absolutely brilliant job. I think he will go down as one of the best police Ministers since World War II in New Zealand, actually. Because what he’s doing is he’s getting police out on the beat, he’s going tough on the gangs, he’s sorting out serious young offenders, he’s getting the job done and that’s what’s important. He’s restoring law and order in New Zealand.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who is correct—

Hon David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I just seek your guidance on the reflection made on a member at the end of that previous question. It appeared to imply that a Minister is not actually committed to serving the Crown but has some other incentive. I think that’s unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.

SPEAKER: Look, I did listen to that. It would not have been unusual in past times to have similar sorts of comments made. I don’t think it reflects well on the person asking the question because it is a statement and not necessarily a question, but I will look at it in the light of a Hansard review and come back to the House.

Hon David Seymour: Well, speaking to that, I wonder if the easy solution is not to offer them the opportunity to withdraw it.

SPEAKER: Sorry, I couldn’t hear that for some reason.

Hon David Seymour: Adding to the point of order, I wonder if the easy solution is not to allow the member to withdraw it if you’ve said you don’t believe it reflects well on them.

SPEAKER: Well, as you know, that would be up to the member. What I’ve just said is that I’m going to review it to see whether it is a transgression and I’ll come back to the House in due course. If the member, on reflection, thinks it might have been, then that’s a course of action open to her.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who is correct: Nicola Willis, who said on 1 July that an announcement about replacement ferries can be expected within the quarter and then, on Monday, by the end of this year; himself, who yesterday morning said by the end of the year, early next year; Matt Doocey, who said in August that an announcement was imminent; or Paul Goldsmith, who can’t even commit to a decision this year?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’ll just say to that member, you’re going to have to do a better job if you want to be leader of the Labour Party—just stealing Tangi Utikere’s questions from yesterday. It’s just a replay, and I just say to you very clearly: we are determined to get the right ferry solution on the strait. What we’re not prepared to do is take a $700 million project and turn it into a $3.2 billion project. We know what we’re doing, we’ll sort it out, and we’ll get a solution.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who does he agree with: Christopher Luxon, who said he’d march in the street to end modern slavery; or Brooke van Velden, who has ceased all work to end such practices in New Zealand because that is just not a priority for her? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, sorry. I’ve been very firm on the fact that you don’t talk or interrupt someone who’s asking a question. There were three interruptions there. I won’t name members, obviously, but I will ask the member to ask her question again—and to be given the respect of the House’s silence.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who does he agree with: Christopher Luxon, who said he’d march in the street to end modern slavery; or Brooke van Velden, who has ceased all work to end such practices in New Zealand because that is just not a priority for her?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’ll just say to the member that that’s another repeat question from yesterday. I just say to the member, the Labour Government had six years in power and for the last three years they had an absolute majority. They were working on a modern slavery Act and couldn’t even deliver it with an absolute majority. We’re a Government that has a big work plan ahead of us. We are clear about our quarterly activities. It’s not something we’re focused on right now. We may well be in the future.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who—

SPEAKER: Wait. The House’s sort of rowdiness could just drop a volume when a question is being answered.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who does he agree with: David Seymour, who complained ACT was not consulted about New Zealand’s position at the UN General Assembly and “expects a more open dialogue”; or Winston Peters, who said he won’t consult with ACT about UN resolutions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Winston Peters is doing an exceptionally good job as New Zealand’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, and he is lifting the intensity and urgency of our relationships across the whole of the Indo-Pacific region. He’s our Minister of Foreign Affairs—he’s doing a great job.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who does he agree with: Andrew Bayly, who endorsed the Grocery Commissioner’s proposal to regulate the supermarket duopoly; or David Seymour, who called the same proposal outlandish?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What a petty line of questions from the deputy leader of the Labour Party today. My goodness! I just say to you: this is a Government that’s focused on the issues that New Zealanders care about—restoring law and order, rebuilding the economy, delivering better public services.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who is to blame for the coalition Government’s confusion and different views on fundamental Government priorities and actions: everyone else who he has blamed this week; or is it simply a reflection of his inadequate leadership?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, I don’t—it’s amusing. I just say it’s a bit rich coming from a deputy leader of a former Government that couldn’t maintain a coalition very well at all. We have a great Government here. We have been able to actually put together three parties that are very united on the core things that matter most. The New Zealand public see it; they like it because we’re getting things done.

SPEAKER: Questions like that will have the House somewhat animated, but we’re now going to all calm down.

Question No. 4—RMA Reform

4. to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What announcements has he made regarding reform of the Resource Management Act 1991?

On Friday last week, I announced that another commitment has been fulfilled, or at least the start of it: our plan to replace the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The RMA has hindered economic growth and productivity and failed to improve the environment. Reforming and replacing our planning system is a key step in this Government’s plan to rebuild the economy. Cabinet has agreed on new design features for our new system, which includes our intention to narrow the scope of this system, and establish two bills with clear and distinct purposes: one to manage environmental effects, and another to enable urban development and infrastructure.

David MacLeod: What are the other new design features for the new resource management system, as agreed to by Cabinet?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The new system will strengthen and clarify the role of environmental limits and it will provide for greater use of national standards to reduce the need for resource consents and simplify council plans. We intend to use spatial—

Hon David Parker: This is all in the Natural and Built Environment Act (NBEA).

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, that was the only decent part of it, Mr Parker. We intend to use spatial planning and a simplified designation process, realising efficiencies by—and this is another one that was also in the NBEA—requiring one regulatory plan per region, jointly prepared by regional and district councils.

Hon David Parker: That was in the NBEA too!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: But unlike the NBEA from the last Government, we won’t be putting in place a co-governed regional planning committee over the top of the existing regional and district councils; we’ll uphold Treaty of Waitangi settlements—

Hon Phil Twyford: Shameless.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —and provide for faster and cheaper processes through the system.

Hon Phil Twyford: Shameless, borrowing Parker’s work.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, he’s very good.

David MacLeod: How important will implementation be in developing this new system?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, just in response to the Hon Phil Twyford’s interjection before: the Hon David Parker—he said the Hon David Parker’s done such a great job, which is precisely why we stole the fast-track legislation. [Interruption]

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Sorry, come back—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order

SPEAKER: Yeah, come back—I’m just in the middle of it.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I apologise; I couldn’t hear so wasn’t aware that you were addressing that, so I’m happy to withdraw if you are in the middle of it, sir.

SPEAKER: Well, I am. I’m just going to tell the Minister to stick to the question and not divert back to what he might consider to be interjections requiring a comment.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I get so few real questions from the Opposition I just felt like to had to—

SPEAKER: No, I tell you what—no, sit down. Look, comments like that will terminate a question. It’s not necessary. We’ll try it one more time.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Apologies, Mr Speaker. Implementation is very important in the new system. We’ve made it clear that establishing the system is going to be ambitious and we want to be pragmatic about how we do it. These changes we’re making through phase three are designed to be implemented as quickly as possible. We have an extensive work programme under way around phase two of the RMA reforms, and the aim is to transfer the changes we are making through phase two in national direction and amendment bills over into phase three to enable a smooth transition. Some RMA settings currently will transition over to the new system so we can carry forward with minimal disruption and uphold Treaty settlements.

Simon Court: How will the replacement resource management system restore property rights in line with the ACT - National coalition agreement?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it is indeed true to say that that is an important part of the National - ACT coalition agreement, and I want to thank the member for his work as Parliamentary Under-Secretary. The new system will embed into law the principle that restrictions on how someone uses their property must be constrained to managing the effects of a given activity undertaken on that property, so we will be embedding into law the importance of property rights through the system, and actually the original RMA back in 1991 started with that fundamental principle. In fact, some people at the time described it as libertarian planning statute. But as we now know, after 33 years of implementation and various court decisions, that has been eroded to the point where the RMA is now an active block on growth and we are changing that.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Does he agree with the ACT Party press release titled “Three cheers for Simon Court” that states: “the Resource Management—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on, hang on. A question’s being asked; the rules apply to the side from which the question is coming, as well.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Shall I start again?

Yes, OK.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Does he agree with the ACT Party press release titled “Three cheers for Simon Court” that states: “the Resource Management Act is being replaced with a law whose central concept is the enjoyment of private property. The starting point is that you have a right to use and develop your own property. The second result is that you have a right to object only if your own property is affected.”

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, but I’d give it two cheers.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It wasn’t a press release—

SPEAKER: Hang on, sorry. Points of order are heard in silence.

Hon David Seymour: It was not a press release; it was the ACT Party’s Free Press, and if anyone would like a subscription, see me after question time.

As the member knows, that wasn’t—

Hon Member: I’ve got enough toilet paper.

OK, one all; leave it there.

Hon David Seymour: I’m sorry, you can’t use it for toilet paper; it’s on what’s called a computer. It’s online.

I suppose this is the last week of term; I suppose that might explain some things but let’s just calm it. David MacLeod, have one last shot at this question.

David MacLeod: What are the next steps the Government is taking to deliver this new resource management system?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We’ve established an expert advisory group; it’s a high-quality group. Janette Campbell’s chairing the group—she’s a barrister, RMA lawyer for 25 years—also, interestingly, a former director of the Environmental Defence Society. We also have Rukumoana Schaafhausen from the Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group; Kevin Counsell, who’s an economist; Gillian Crowcroft, an environmental scientist; Mark Chrisp, an RMA consultant; Paul Melville from the agriculture sector; and Christine Jones. This group is going to prepare the blueprint and our aim is to get legislation to the House next year so we can replace the system and have a new series of Acts by the time of the next election.

Question No. 5—Prime Minister

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

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

Yes, and, in particular, our action to keep public transport workers safe. There has been a worrying increase in abuse and attacks on public transport workers in recent months, and that’s totally unacceptable. So we’re introducing tougher consequences for the cowards who engage in this kind of behaviour, with changes introduced as part of the Government’s sentencing legislation. We’re also setting aside funding to respond to the problem, with local authorities soon able to apply for funding for safety improvements like retrofitted safety screens, real-time CCTV monitoring, and better facilities for drivers. All New Zealanders deserve to feel safe at home, at work, or in the community, and we’re taking steps to make sure that’s the case.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister tell us the average time that it takes for a new oil and gas field to come online from exploration to production?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. If you’d like to ask a specific question to the relevant Minister, I’m sure we can come back to you.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that the average time it takes for an oil and gas field to go from exploration to production is 16 years?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I am now, so thank you for telling me.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister not think that before pursuing a public policy decision to reopen oil and gas exploration, perhaps he may have availed himself of the data and evidence about how long it takes an oil and gas field to go from exploration to production?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, all I can say is that I observed a previous Greens climate change Minister and Labour Government do a “just transition” which meant we stopped producing domestic gas and we ended up importing huge amounts of foreign coal.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why is the Prime Minister committing our country to more production of oil and gas, not only today or tomorrow but 16-plus years into the future?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because we’re going to need gas in our electricity system to make sure we can keep the lights on. We want to double the amount of renewables in our system, we’ve got plans to do that: Electrify New Zealand, fast-track legislation. I’d really welcome that member and her party’s support for that, so that we can double the amount of renewable electricity. But we’re going to need gas for some time, and we want to have domestic production of that, and we’re going to continue to do that.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How exactly does the Prime Minister expect the Green Party to support his fast-track legislation when he is actively keeping the projects contained within it secret, while also making it pretty clear that those projects include the likes of coal mines?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The good news is the legislation will be coming forward very soon, and the member and the party will get a chance to vote on it.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement on 1 July 2024, “You’ll find out about the ferries once Ministers have made decisions. And I expect that will be within the quarter”; if so, can we expect an announcement within the next five days?

Yes, because that was my expectation at the time. Ministers are focused on getting the right solution for a safe, reliable, and resilient Cook Strait ferry service. We are taking the time to get it right, and an announcement in the next five days is unlikely. Unlike the previous Government, we are determined that the solution will be fiscally responsible—unlike the iReX project, which blew out from $750 million to more than $3 billion.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Who is correct: David Seymour, who said there “hasn’t really been a discussion amongst the parties”; or herself, when she said the governing parties were “all engaged in the process, testing proposals and asking questions”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I think that if you were to ask David Seymour whether he has engaged in discussion with me about the ferries, he would happily confirm that, yes, he has.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Isn’t it the case that Ministers from the three Government parties have met to discuss the ferries but were unable to agree on the replacement?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: What I will say is that a decision will be made once Cabinet is clear that it has the best option to provide a safe, reliable, and resilient Cook Strait ferry service and that the option is fiscally responsible. We will not repeat the mistakes of the previous Government with its disastrous iReX project and enormous cost blowouts.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the real reason why this matter has not gone to Cabinet, given she has had the ministerial advisory group advice for months, that the three Government parties cannot agree?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am not going into details of ministerial or party discussions. What I will say is that we are taking advice and carefully considering that advice to ensure we make a fiscally responsible decision that ensures a safe, reliable, and resilient Cook Strait ferry service.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What specific issues still need to be agreed to between the governing parties before she can take a paper to Cabinet?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: A paper will be taken to Cabinet in due course, and I will make announcements thereafter.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why, almost a year after cancelling the iReX project, does her Government not know what the costs of the alternative ferries will be, the cost of the landside infrastructure we’ll need, and the cost of breaking the Hyundai contract?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We have information about all of those factors, and we have judged that it is in the public interest to make our decisions known when we have made final decisions, and that is when we will make announcements.

Question No.7—Education

My question is to the Minister of Education and asks—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on a minute. Can we just have a bit of quiet while the questions are being answered.

7. to the Minister of Education: How have the Government’s plans to introduce structured literacy next year progressed?

Since June, around 4,000 teachers have had training in structured literacy. Another 3,000 will start shortly. Two thousand schools will receive decodable books and resources for teachers to use in class, free of charge. Schools will receive up to $5,000 a year, every year, over the next four years to buy extra resources if they want them. Consultation on the new curriculum has just been completed and 76 schools are trialling the new phonics check before it gets rolled out next year. Less than a year ago, we came into Government and said we would roll out structured literacy in every primary, and 10 months later we’re showing what can be achieved when you move with pace, clarity, and purpose.

Tom Rutherford: What specific actions have been taken to invest in Rangaranga Reo ā-Tā, the structured literacy equivalent in te reo Māori?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The refresh of Te Marautanga o Aotearoa will provide teachers with knowledge-rich, year-by-year curriculum to support reading and writing in te reo Māori. And for the first time, schools will be able to use a purpose-built phonics check to see how a child is progressing and reading through te reo Māori over the course of four checks over two years. We’re also delivering structured literacy in teacher guides, new decodable books, and classroom resources in te reo Māori. Up until now, teachers have had to make their own. We are committed to excellent Māori outcomes; it’s a priority for me to support learning through te reo Māori to achieve educational excellence.

Tom Rutherford: What positive feedback has she received from principals about the nation-wide introduction of structured literacy?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: One principal wrote to me to commend the action the Government is taking, leading changes in education. After three years of structured literacy in their school, the principal said, “We have seen radical improvements in outcomes for our learners. They are engaged, encouraged, inspired, and heartened, and we continue to see great gains with our students with clear scope and sequence, whole-school consistent approach.” We are ensuring that all children have the same opportunity to thrive and get the best start in literacy.

Tom Rutherford: What has she heard from school leaders about how these changes will benefit New Zealand students?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: A deputy principal wrote to me to say that “Good schools who have been using this approach in their teaching and learning programmes are finding it to be a total game-changer. The benefits are immense. Data is improving, delivery has improved. Children now feel that learning and progress is happening to them. It is really exciting.” This Government has clarity, determination, and purpose that sets up our children for success, and through structured literacy we’re on the right track.

Question No. 8—Energy

When, if at all, will the Minister take action to fix—

SPEAKER: No, no, just read it as it is on the sheet. Yeah, you added a word in there. It’s all right. Just read it as you see it on the sheet.

8. to the Minister for Energy: When, if at all, will he take action to fix the electricity market and ensure a rapid and effective transition to a fully renewable electricity system?

The Government’s number one priority is to ensure New Zealand has globally competitive energy prices for Kiwi households and businesses. Moving to a 100 percent renewable electricity target would be prohibitively expensive to achieve. To ensure confidence for our electricity market and to support greater investment in renewable electricity generation, the Government is taking a number of actions: we’ve stopped Lake Onslow, which was having a chilling effect on the electricity market; we’ll reverse the ban on oil and gas to ensure adequate supply of gas generation to firm renewable generation; remove the 100 percent renewable electricity target; fast-track consenting to allow renewable generation projects to be able to be consented more quickly; developing an offshore renewable energy regime; establishing an Energy Competition Task Force to drive more generation, investment, and strengthen competition; and undertaking Resource Management Act (RMA) changes to enable doubling of renewable generation by 2050 through our Electrify New Zealand policies.

Scott Willis: If the Government considers consenting to be one of the major issues for renewable electricity, why are there over 30 consented projects being sat on by consent holders that haven’t started construction?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, there’s a number of reasons for that. Ultimately, that is why the Electricity Authority and the Commerce Commission have also set up the Energy Competition Task Force work programme to ensure we have a more competitive market, and that’s ultimately what we need. I’d also make the point that it’s not just around the consent; that is why we have the fast-track one-stop shop, which looks at all of the elements that are required to actually get projects delivered in New Zealand, and I encourage the member to support the bill.

Scott Willis: How was the move to make liquefied natural gas (LNG), or rather fossil gas, part of the electricity market and energy mix—how is that going to give surety to investors to invest and build renewable electricity generation?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I’ve said in the House on a number of occasions: when you face circumstances like we have this year—where we’ve had the lowest lake levels since 1992, we’ve had less wind than was expected, and we’ve had a significant downgrade in gas production—we’ve ended up with record high prices, and so ultimately we need the supply of energy needed to be able to firm renewable projects. LNG will be required to fit the gap if we don’t find indigenous gas in New Zealand, and so that’s where it can play a critical role so that there is confidence, so when the sun’s not shining, when the wind’s not blowing, there’s the ability to be able to have the gas to firm those renewable generations and increase renewable sources of generation in New Zealand.

Scott Willis: Why has the Government moved faster on chaotic fossil fuel initiatives such as opening up oil and gas drilling than it has on its purported goals to electrify New Zealand and provide solutions to the electricity market, like separating generation and retail functions of the gentailers?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I completely reject the answer to that question. One of the very first pieces of legislation this Government brought in was fast-track consenting, which is about enabling renewable generation in New Zealand. I want to acknowledge the Hon Shane Jones and the Hon Chris Bishop for their work in bringing that legislation to the Parliament. I ask that member to support the bill.

Scott Willis: When, if ever, will we finally see a consultation or even a simple announcement about a national policy statement for renewable electricity generation and a national energy strategy, or has it taken a back seat like the rest of the Government’s climate change initiatives?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the Minister for RMA reform has made announcements around our approach to national policy statements and bringing legislation to the House to enable that to be changed far more effectively, efficiently, and consistently, so that we can have an enabling framework for national policy statements. That legislation is being progressed by my very good colleague the Hon Chris Bishop.

Question No. 9—Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations

9. to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Yes, in the context in which they were given and undertaken.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does he stand by his statement “My focus in Government will be building on the good outcomes of colonisation and fixing the bad ones”, and are the amendments to the marine and coastal area (MACA) Act an example of good or bad outcomes of colonisation, and, if not, why not?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, in relation to the work we’re doing in MACA, what we’re simply doing is trying to restore the test that was included in the legislation in 2011, which a Court of Appeal decision manifestly changed. So that’s what we’re doing, and it makes good sense.

Hon Willie Jackson: Can the Minister provide an example of when he has acted in good faith with Māori iwi in regard to meaningful consultation?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, yes, we continue to, and this bill, as we just said before the House today, is heading off to select committee, where everybody—iwi and all New Zealanders—will be able to have an opportunity to have their say on this legislation. We continue to have many meaningful discussions up and down the country around a range of Treaty issues, including MACA, and we listen very carefully on all those occasions.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does he stand by his statement that he’s committed to settle Ngāpuhi’s Treaty claim, and, if so, how can Ngāpuhi trust him when he chooses to consult with the seafood industry before he has spoken with Māori in regards to MACA?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, in regards to the Ngāpuhi settlement, I’m committed to doing our very best. Ultimately, if you are coming up with a settlement, it needs two parties to agree to a settlement and to have somebody to settle with. So we’re working very enthusiastically towards that. I think, if you think about Northland, there are two things that will make a real difference to the Northland regional economy: one will be to build a decent road, and, secondly, it will be to make progress on the Ngāpuhi settlement. We’re doing our very best.

Hon Shane Jones: The takutai moana bill just introduced to the House—is it true that it merely restores the language originally in the bill, as voted for by the Māori Party in 2011?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, the purpose is to restore the test. And it’s a high test, because what we have, of course, is that all New Zealanders have an interest in what goes on in the marine and coastal space, but the legislation allows for customary marine title to be granted to applicant groups, which gives them valuable rights that are not available to all other New Zealanders. So Parliament set a high threshold, and that is what we are restoring in this legislation.

SPEAKER: I appreciate that the question was the result of creep in the supplementaries coming from the Opposition to the Minister, but it was not entirely in line with the primary question.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. How many iwi are currently taking the Government to court or are preparing to take the Government to court for breaches of the Treaty, and how does this help to grow a positive relationship between Māori iwi and the Crown to deliver meaningful Treaty relationships?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, of course, I could not be expected to know how many iwi are planning to take the Crown to court, because there may be a large number of people planning to do something but whether they will or not remains to be seen. And, of course, the reality across our history is that there has been a lot of litigation under previous Governments, and this Government, and all we’re trying to do with the takutai moana legislation, of course, is to restore what Parliament meant and said in its legislation.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does the Minister still consider Don Brash as “a true New Zealand patriot”, and will he be adopting the same language as Brash and his supporters, and use such words as “Māori separatism”, “Māori privilege”, “special deals for Māori”, and with words added for effect, like “race-based”, “Apartheid”, and even “Nazi Germany”, and, if not, why not?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I’m not quite sure how that relates to my ministerial activities. I wrote a biography on Don Brash 20 years ago. The member might be jealous because I haven’t written one on him, but I only write about successful people.

Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t believe at all that the Minister has addressed the question. The question is: does he—

SPEAKER: No, no, I heard the question, and it’s a bit like bowling at the wickets and missing by quite a wide margin. So the member might like to try a different question.

Hon Willie Jackson: Are you saying it’s not a point of order?

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?

Hon Willie Jackson: It’s not a point of order?

SPEAKER: What did you say?

Hon Willie Jackson: I’m saying that I don’t believe he’s addressed the question.

SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s a point of order, and I’m just saying that the question doesn’t need to be addressed, because it was so wide of the wicket that he couldn’t possibly hit it no matter how wide he swung his bat. So if the member wants to ask a different question, without penalty to his side, then go for your life.

Hon Members: Oh!

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you—

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon. Who made that comment?

Hon Willie Jackson: Tama Potaka.

SPEAKER: Those sorts of reflections are not going to go well for any side.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I ask the Minister whether his officials were correct when they advised him that any amendment to the takutai moana Act was likely to attract significant litigation, reputational, constitutional, Treaty of Waitangi, Māori-Crown relationship, possible damage, and wider public perception risk, and, if not, why not? Was he advised by his officials about that?

SPEAKER: The Minister can answer but he’s not the Minister for Crown-Māori relations; he is the Minister for Treaty negotiations. In so much as he has ministerial responsibility, please attempt an answer.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Point of order. The question was about my statements and actions. I’m not quite sure what the advice of my officials was in relation to my statements and actions, but I’m happy to answer it. But it seems a long way from the primary question.

SPEAKER: No, we’re not going to have that sort of exchange. Do you have another question?

Hon Willie Jackson: Yes, yes, thanks, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister honestly say that the actions by him and his Government are honouring the Treaty, and, if so, what specifically can he point to where he is doing that?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, we’re working very hard to continue the Treaty settlement process, which has been carried out by many Governments over the last 30 years, and that’s why we’re negotiating hard. We managed to pass the Whakatōhea legislation, which was started by the previous Government and a work that we’ve continued. And that is an important way in which we can honour the Treaty relationship.

Question No. 10—Mental Health

10. to the Minister for Mental Health: How is Health New Zealand delivering on the Government’s priority to grow the mental health and addiction workforce?

I would first like to acknowledge that this week is Mental Health Awareness Week. This year the theme is “Community is … what we create together”. I want to particularly acknowledge our mental health and addiction workforce, who make a difference in vulnerable Kiwis’ lives every day. Yesterday, Health New Zealand published its mental health and addiction workforce plan, which sets out how we will grow the mental health and addiction workforce over the next three years and achieve the Government’s workforce target of training 500 mental health and addiction professionals every year. One of the biggest barriers to timely mental health and addiction support is our workforce vacancy rates. That is why one of my top priorities is growing the mental health and addiction workforce, and it’s pleasing to see Health New Zealand respond with a plan that will make meaningful increases to our workforce.

SPEAKER: Good. We’ll have brief answers from here.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: How will this plan contribute to the Government’s mental health and addiction targets?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: This Government has introduced five mental health and addiction targets—the first time in New Zealand—to drive performance in the health system and to hold us accountable. We have a specific target of training 500 mental health and addiction workforce professionals every year. We’re currently training about 423. Under this plan announced yesterday, we will grow that to the 500 target in its first year.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why does New Zealand need a mental health and addiction workforce plan?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Our hard-working mental health and addiction workforce is under considerable strain. Workforce shortages are a significant barrier to Kiwis getting faster access to mental health and addiction support. This was actually one of the key findings in the recent Auditor-General report earlier this year. The report called on the Government to prioritise a mental health and addiction workforce plan because there was no plan under the last Government. I’ve made this development a priority, and I’m proud to have delivered it.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What initiatives are included in the mental health and addiction workforce plan?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: We’ll deliver on the Government’s commitment to double Health New Zealand clinical psychology intern numbers by 2027. This will grow clinical internships by 100 percent, from 2023 to 2027. We’ve also begun a new registration associate psychology, where students will begin training in 2026 and enter the workforce in 2027—on top of that, new funding for peer support training that will grow that workforce by 90 new places every year.

Ingrid Leary: Why does his mental health workforce plan fail to address immediate workforce shortfalls caused by a front-line hiring freeze that he refuses to acknowledge?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Really pleased to talk about the workforce plan that will be delivered out of baseline. And if that member wants to talk immediate response, then she might want to reflect why it didn’t occur for six years under her Government.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Can the Minister just describe for us in your plan and your target for young Māori men, who are predominantly the highest of all at risk of suicide—could you elaborate on that for us, thank you?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, what we want with our mental health workforce plan is to grow the pipeline of all the mental health, addiction, and suicide prevention professional roles. Not only that, within the training pipeline we want those pipelines representative of New Zealand’s communities.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Specifically to young Māori men—it’s possibly a point of order, actually, Mr Speaker; I’m not quite sure now. It’s that that I’m looking for a response to: young Māori men—how does your target and your plan and your workforce cater for culturally accurate responses to young Māori men?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: As I answered in the previous supplementary question, we want a mental health, addiction, and suicide prevention workforce that is culturally competent and represents the communities of New Zealand.

Question No. 11—Prime Minister

11. to the Prime Minister: Does he agree that his commitment to support the Treaty Principles Bill through to select committee is a reasonable and responsible action for a Prime Minister of a country?

Yes.

SPEAKER: The right honourable Prime Minister—oh, OK, right, good, off the mark fast.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry. Do you want me to repeat the answer?

SPEAKER: Yes, just—

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

Tākuta Ferris: Does he agree with Justin Tipa, chairman of Ngāi Tahu, regarding the Treaty principles bill, when he says, and I quote, “David Seymour and ACT are misconstruing history. You can’t have a reasonable debate with a person or party who distorts the truth”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have a very clearly established coalition Government position. We are supporting the bill to first reading and there is no commitment to support it beyond that.

Tākuta Ferris: Does he agree with Justin Tipa, chairman of Ngāi Tahu, who says, and I quote, “One of ACT’s original Treaty principle ‘definitions’ suggested that ‘tino rangatiratanga’ applies to individual citizens and boils down to a protection of property rights. This was a deliberate attempt to define rangatiratanga out of existence.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I refer the member to my last answer. But we have a coalition Government Cabinet decision to support this bill to first reading, and not beyond that.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Sir, I want to direct your attention to Standing Order 390—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: What? Don’t eat in the House.

Hon Shane Jones: —“Content of questions”—

Hon Willie Jackson: Have another lolly.

Hon Shane Jones: —and whether or not quoting indiscriminately—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: As all members know, points of order are heard in silence. While there might be a desire to give the member taking a point of order advice as to how they should present themselves, it’s not for other members to do that. Have you swallowed yet?

Hon Shane Jones: I could reciprocate.

SPEAKER: No—just take your point of order in the House in silence.

Hon Shane Jones: The point of order I’m raising with you, Standing Order 390—surely that question ought not to have been allowed. You can’t indiscriminately quote things that are not factually correct.

SPEAKER: If we were to rule out quotes in this House, factually correct or otherwise, we’d become an incredibly bland place. Now, the member asking a question is asking “Does he agree with?”, and that is a perfectly legitimate question. If the following assertion is wrong, then the answer could well and truly point that out. Tākuta Ferris, ask the question again.

Hon Member: He’s got the answer.

SPEAKER: Oh—no, hang on, we’ve had an answer. Sorry—next one.

Tākuta Ferris: Does he agree with Justin Tipa, chairman of Ngāi Tahu, when he says, “Now, in [the] latest attempt, ACT suggests if iwi and hapū are to exercise rangatiratanga … as guaranteed in Article II of the Treaty of Waitangi—that may only be done with express permission of the State.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I’ll say the same thing. The coalition Government has a commitment and a decision to support this bill to first reading and not beyond that.

Tākuta Ferris: Does he agree with Justin Tipa, chairman of Ngāi Tahu, when he says, “The Treaty Principles Bill is a great example of why the ACT Party is not equipped to lead us in important conversations about our identity as New Zealanders, or where we are heading as a country. Seymour’s efforts are naïve, politically clumsy, and ultimately unproductive for New Zealand.”?

SPEAKER: That is an unnecessarily long question with a fairly unspecific aspect of a question. If it was asked generally—“Does he agree with the comments of Mr Tipa?”—then that might be straightforward, but, for such a broad question, you’re pushing the Standing Orders as far as they’re prepared to go. Yeah, the question is to the Prime Minister.

Hon Simeon Brown: Point order, Mr Speaker. I mean, the questions are in relation to someone’s comments, and the Prime Minister doesn’t have responsibility for someone else’s comments.

SPEAKER: No, he has responsibility for his own reactions to those comments—that’s what he’s being asked about. Ask the question again.

Tākuta Ferris: Does he agree with Justin Tipa, chairman of Ngāi Tahu, when he says, “The Treaty Principles Bill is a great example of why the ACT Party—

SPEAKER: Yep—OK. That’s enough. We’ve got it. I just wanted to find out how you prefaced the front of that question, and it is in order. Prime Minister.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I’ve said to that member, we have a Government decision—speaking as Prime Minister—to support this bill to first reading and not beyond that.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier today you made a point of reminding my good self that answers had to be succinct. You’ve got no business letting that question go on because it’s not concise.

SPEAKER: Well, the question has gone on and it has been answered. And while it was not concise, I had made that point to the member just a little bit before, if you check out the Hansard. In general, I’ve got to say the answers to questions have become progressively long. I’ve been watching the clock today to see how long, and there is a point where the value of the answer becomes lost in the length of the diatribe that goes with it. That brings to an end oral questions.

Dr Tracey McLellan: No—no.

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry—Tracey McLellan.

Question No. 12—Health

12. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his answer to written question No. 39136 (2024) that “the practical completion date for the Whakatuputupu - New Dunedin Hospital Outpatients Building project is anticipated for July 2026, and that the practical completion date for the Whakatuputupu - New Dunedin Hospital Inpatients Building is anticipated for November 2029”; if not, why not?

on behalf of the Minister of Health: Yes, in the context in which it was given. That was the advice provided by officials at the time. However, as the member should be aware, the full answer to that question also stated that, “… forecasted completion dates may be subject to change based on various factors, including system/cost pressures, necessary approvals, etc. There are key stage gates where accuracy of an estimate is enhanced, these are generally a business case decision, at the end of each design phase and main contract award.” As all members will acknowledge, this is an incredibly challenging project. However, what I can assure the member is that this Government will build a hospital in Dunedin.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Can the Minister then commit to ensuring there will be no downgrades to the design or to the services of the New Dunedin Hospital, given the widespread concern from not only health professionals but the whole community?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister, what I can commit to is this Government will build a hospital in Dunedin.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Is it correct that the in-patient building is being changed to one that comprises a number of smaller buildings?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: What is correct is that this project is under review. We need to ensure that we are building a hospital that delivers for the health needs of Dunedin.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Does the Minister agree with a statement from former Southern District Health Board Chairman Pete Hodgson that “To set out to redesign or make a lesser thing would basically end up costing more in the long run.”; if not, why not?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister, what I can agree with is that this is an incredibly complex project. Ministers are looking at this closely to ensure we can deliver better health outcomes for the people of Dunedin.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Isn’t it correct that he can no longer keep his pre-election promise to the people of the southern region because of reckless tax cuts?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: What is correct is the Dunedin project remains under active consideration as the Government works to deliver an important health facility that represents value for money. We’re committed to delivering better health outcomes for the people of Dunedin.