Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the cost of living?

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Last week, Statistics New Zealand released the latest monthly selected price indexes. This is not the full Consumer Price Index (CPI), which comes out quarterly, but it covers a number of constituent items, including food, which is almost 20 percent of the total basket of goods and services in the CPI. Last week’s release shows that food prices in New Zealand—including prices of fruit and vegetables, meat, dairy, and grocery items—rose only 0.4 percent over the past year. I think that the fact that food prices have settled will be welcomed by New Zealand households after years of a cost of living crisis.

Stuart Smith: How does this compare to food price increases over recent years?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Annual food price inflation was 4.2 percent at the beginning of this year and has come right down to 0.4 percent, yet during 2022 and 2023, in the worst period of the cost of living crisis, food prices were rising more than 10 percent a year. So, yes, in that context, an annual food price increase of 0.4 percent is very low, and excluding the current year, you have to go back to 2018 to find annual food price increases as low as 0.4 percent.

Stuart Smith: What are people’s expectations for future CPI increases?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Reserve Bank, in its August Monetary Policy Statement, is forecasting annual CPI inflation of 2.3 percent in the current quarter, thereafter declining to 2 percent.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: About what it was before the election.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Other economic forecasters have a similar view—I just wish the Leader of the Opposition could delight in the cost of living coming down for the New Zealanders we are all meant to serve. Businesses, as surveyed in the ANZ Business Outlook survey, expect inflation to be under 3 percent in a year’s time. The first—

Hon Ginny Andersen: Speech.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: For the benefit of Ginny Andersen, the first sub 3 percent result in this survey since July 2021. And it is, of course, a long way from inflation of 7.3 percent under the past Government.

Hon David Seymour: Has the Minister seen any reports on the costs of running a car in Wellington, and, if so, how do they compare with rates rises under the council there?

SPEAKER: Yeah—not strictly in line with the other questions, so we’ll move that. Stuart Smith.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any Standing Order that forbids that question from being asked or answered?

SPEAKER: Yes, there are. I quoted them earlier today—if the member was listening—and if he likes to get his books out and have a look at those references, he’ll find his answers. 

Stuart Smith: What does lower inflation mean for interest rates and the future of the economy?

SPEAKER: Well, once again, wide of the mark, so we’ll go to question No. 2—the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, especially our action to support young families with the cost of living. As of yesterday, low to middle income families with young children can register for the new FamilyBoost payment to help them meet the cost of early childhood education. That’s good news for all those families in the squeezed middle, who have been hit hard by the cost of living crisis in recent years. The last few years have been tough, especially for those young families juggling work and childcare. As this is a Government for working Kiwis, FamilyBoost is just one of the actions, along with tax relief, to get on top of the rising cost of living and support Kiwis to get ahead.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the Government still committed to meeting its emissions reduction obligations under the Paris Agreement; if so, is it the Government’s intention to meet those obligations solely through domestic emissions reductions within New Zealand?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, the Government is on track to deliver on its commitments for 2050.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. I was asking the Prime Minister whether he was intending to meet those obligations through domestic reductions within New Zealand.

SPEAKER: Well, he addressed the question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is it the Government’s intention to meet those emissions reduction obligations within New Zealand by reducing New Zealand’s emissions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: This is a Government that is deeply committed to delivering on our net zero goals for 2050. We have a comprehensive climate strategy that involves transport, energy, waste, agriculture, public electric vehicle chargers, doubling renewable energy, and, obviously, giving more tools to farmers, including gene editing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If the Government doesn’t meet its emissions reduction obligations by reducing New Zealand’s emissions, will it purchase international carbon credits to offset its failure to reach those targets?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’d say to the member is that we are on track to hit the first and second emissions budgets. We have actually been consulting on our draft emissions reduction plan. It is out there—[Interruption] It is now, and we look forward to reporting back on that in the fourth quarter of this year.

SPEAKER: Just calm it down. The general sort of, what would you say, interjection across the House, when it’s coming from more than one person, is very difficult.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, does he agree with Simon Watts that it wouldn’t be realistic for New Zealand to use overseas carbon credits to meet the 2030 target; if so, how does he intend to meet New Zealand’s obligations under the Paris Agreement, given the latest emissions reduction plan indicates the Government will fall short of the target?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I do agree with Simon Watts. He’s doing an excellent job as the Minister of Climate Change, and what I’d say is that we have sent a draft emissions reduction plan out. Consulting, I think, is now closed, and in the next quarter you’ll see a final emissions reduction plan that will lay that out exactly.

Hon Shane Jones: How does a trip to London by a parliamentarian seeking economic and political salvation contribute to the reduction of global emissions?

SPEAKER: Well, the Prime Minister would have to answer for half the House if he was going to do that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. This is a Parliament where you’re allowed to debate ideas and concepts, and it’s a very innocent question as to whether our country’s carbon footprint is enhanced by this needless travel or not.

SPEAKER: That might be true, but, if you go to the heart of it, the arbiter of whether or not a question can be asked is actually the Speaker. And, obviously, that one can’t be.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order—

SPEAKER: No, no. Don’t argue with the Speaker’s ruling.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, the arbiter is not just the Speaker; otherwise, we are going to be the victim of—

SPEAKER: Hang on—wait on.

Hon Willie Jackson: No!

SPEAKER: Who spoke then?

Hon Willie Jackson: Me.

SPEAKER: Just do not speak while there is a point of order in progress.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, the arbiter is not the Speaker’s personality; it is tradition and precedent, and I’m afraid this Parliament is being—excuse the words—negatived by unfair rulings. This is a place of waging war in terms of political ideas and debate. We welcome it. We’re one of the world’s great democracies, so please don’t spoil that development.

SPEAKER: And I quite agree with you, but if you look at the Speakers’ rulings that I quoted today, you’ll find that that’s where your argument is. Come along to the Standing Orders Committee and make a case, but, in any event, the Prime Minister has no responsibility for anything that the Opposition does.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he aware that the Government’s decision to scrap the Clean Car Discount and lower the Clean Car Standard increased New Zealand’s emissions by more than the annual emissions of Tuvalu, Nauru, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Tonga, Vanuatu, Palau, Solomon Islands, Samoa, and Fiji combined?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I am well aware that we are going to deliver emissions reduction budget No. 1, emissions reduction budget No. 2. We have an emissions reduction plan that is out there, which you’ll see in the fourth quarter, but I’d just say to that member: if you’re very serious about delivering on net carbon zero 2050, actually support our fast-track legislation; actually support ending the oil and gas ban, because all we’ve had is a just transition from stopping getting domestic gas to importing foreign coal, and that doesn’t seem right.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will next year’s Budget account for the New Zealand Government’s financial liability in the event that the Government doesn’t meet its emissions reduction targets; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: You’ll have to wait till next year’s Budget.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I can’t see how that could possibly be Budget sensitive. It’s asking whether the Government is actually going to be accounting for the significant multibillion-dollar financial liability that New Zealand will have in the event that it doesn’t meet its targets.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s a hypothetical, to say the least, and the Budget for next year clearly hasn’t been set. Do you have another question?

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

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

Yes, and especially our action on housing. I know the member opposite is a fan of rent control, and the good news is that our Government has delivered a rent control all of our own. According to Tenancy Services, there has been no increase in average rents since the end of last year. And according to Statistics New Zealand, the flow measure of rent inflation has fallen to just 1.4 percent over the last 12 months. It’s a great reminder that you don’t need to control rents with more taxes, regulations, and interventions. You keep rents down with less tax, fewer regulations, less intervention, and more housing supply. I’m proud that our Government has a comprehensive programme to do just that.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How does cutting over 400 public sector science jobs across GNS Science, the National Institute of Water and Atmosphere Research Ltd., Callaghan Innovation, and other Government departments support his coalition commitment that “decisions will be based on data and evidence”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because it’s a Government interested in outcomes, and we make sure we’re organised to deliver those outcomes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his disregard for the overwhelming evidence against military-style boot camps by saying, “I don’t care what you say about [what] does or doesn’t work.”, and, if so, is this a more true reflection of his Government’s priorities than the therefore neglected coalition commitment that “decisions will be based on data and evidence”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t care what media pundits or commentators think about that. We are making a powerful, targeted intervention in the lives of vulnerable New Zealanders. We’ve got a pilot under way with respect to our military-style academies and we are going to do everything we can to get a different set of outcomes. What the previous Government was doing wasn’t working—we’re changing that.

Chlöe Swarbrick: When, if at all, does he intend to appoint a new Chief Science Adviser, a role that he knew would be vacated back when he became Prime Minister and has now been empty for months?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We currently have a review of the science system and there’ll be a decision made about that shortly.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What does it say about his Government’s commitment to “data and evidence” that since he has taken office, chief science adviser roles at the ministries of transport and education and the Department of Conservation have been vacated and still remain vacant?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, it’s a different way of thinking. We are interested in improving outcomes environmentally, socially, and economically. The way we organise Government will be different from the previous administration. It’s what we do that matters as much as the roles we have and the money that we put in.

Chlöe Swarbrick: If he is going to ignore his coalition agreement’s stated commitment to data and evidence, would he also think to ignore, for example, divisive commitments to introducing a Treaty principles rewrite bill?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We take our coalition commitments incredibly seriously and we honour them with each other.

Hon David Seymour: Would the Government’s commitment to decision making based on data and evidence include taking a policy that sounds kind of the same from decades ago and using it to judge the military-style academies being introduced by this Government which are completely different, as that member just did?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’re doing a pilot to make sure that we get it right, but it is incredibly different from what has been proposed in the past decades.

Question No. 4—Justice

4. to the Minister of Justice: What actions is the Government taking to reduce harm caused by gangs and to make communities safer?

The Government’s taking many actions. Shortly, the Gangs Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill will pass their third readings in Parliament, which will reduce the ability of gangs to cause fear, intimidation, and disruption to New Zealanders by giving the police additional tools to disrupt gang activity. Another action of the Government is to introduce the sentencing reform package that will install real consequences for crime and, ultimately, will put more serious offenders, including gang members, in prison for longer to prevent them creating new victims.

Rima Nakhle: Why do police need additional tools to deal with gangs?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, because gang membership increased by 51 percent in the previous six years, and the police needed new tools to be able to respond. We’re doing this for the law-abiding New Zealanders who should be able to go about their lives without fear of being intimidated and preyed upon by organised crime.

Rima Nakhle: Why is the Government ensuring the Gangs Bill covers gang patches and other insignia displayed in vehicles?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the Government is introducing an amendment to the Gangs Bill that will ensure that gang patches and other gang insignia that are displayed from within a vehicle will be covered by the gang. The Government has decided to clarify that because when we identify a potential problem, we move to fix it.

Rima Nakhle: Does the Minister agree with commentary that, in relation to gangs, “There are no real problems that need immediate attention.”?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I’m afraid I disagree with that comment by Dr Duncan Webb. It is urgent. Gang members make up less than one-quarter of 1 percent of the adult population, yet they’re linked to 18 percent of all serious violent crime, 19 percent of all homicides, 23 percent of all firearms offences, and 25 percent of all kidnapping and abductions.

Question No. 5—Health

5. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his decision to appoint a Health New Zealand commissioner, and does he stand by his commitment not to cut front-line services at Health New Zealand?

I absolutely stand by my decision to appoint a commissioner to Health New Zealand. The botched health reforms have contributed to Health New Zealand’s achievement levels deteriorating both financially and in terms of performance, and that was not sustainable. That’s why we took decisive action to appoint a commissioner in order to turn Health New Zealand around and to assure that our Government’s record investment in health—$16.68 billion in this year’s Budget—would go where it is needed most. To the second part of the member’s question, the commissioner has been made very aware that my expectation is that front-line services are not to be cut. He has consistently assured me that this will not happen. New Zealanders require a health system that works when they need it, and we’re committed to delivering that.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he think it is acceptable that non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are being used at Health New Zealand in an unprecedented manner and even cover officials expressing their ideas about Health New Zealand?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: NDAs are standard commercial practice and they’ve been carried across by numerous Governments, including in the form of confidentiality agreements.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: With respect to his instructions to the Health New Zealand Commissioner, has he said any particular cuts are off the table?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: That is an operational matter for Health New Zealand. As I said in my very first statement, I’ve expressed my expectations to the Health Commissioner that cuts to front-line services will not happen.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Can he describe in plain English to the people of New Zealand how he is making sure they are not put at risk by cost-cutting measures at Health New Zealand?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We’re establishing a framework with Health New Zealand using the assistance of Ministry of Health, Health New Zealand, and the Health Quality and Safety Commission to make sure that as the Health New Zealand turn-around progresses, patients and staff are safe.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Did he or his office instruct any Government members of the Health Committee to vote against my proposal that key financial reports be presented ahead of today’s select committee hearing?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I have had no discussions of that nature.

Question No. 6—Police

6. to the Minister of Police: How many members of the Comancheros motorcycle gang are facing charges following recent Police operations?

I’m happy to confirm that following Operations Embargo, Scuba, Brewer, and Avon, 41 members of the Comancheros have received a total of 137 charges. That includes 17 office holders, 10 patched members, and 14 prospects. I want to congratulate and thank our hard-working New Zealand Police for their outstanding work in dealing a significant blow to the Comancheros in New Zealand.

Joseph Mooney: What results did those operations bring?

Hon Willie Jackson: Who started it?

SPEAKER: Sorry, would the Minister sit down. We’re not having this across-the-House stuff while a question is being asked, so if people engage in that, they won’t be staying long.

Joseph Mooney: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What results did those operations bring?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The operations targeting a gang that has recruited young and impressionable Kiwis with its shiny brand have dealt a significant blow to the gang. Police seized 14 vehicles, $9.2 million in assets, $1.3 million in cash, five properties, and over 200 kilograms of meth. They also seized 41 gang patches.

Joseph Mooney: How much harm have police prevented?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The seizure of over 200 kilograms of meth has prevented $216 million worth of social harm being done in our communities. In terms of the harm caused to their members, yesterday we heard from the commissioner that when police listened to Comancheros communications, members were told clearly that if they left the gang they would be put in a body bag. My message to people looking to join a gang is, quite simply, don’t.

Joseph Mooney: What more is the Government doing to crack down on gangs?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Unfortunately, the 0.25 percent of New Zealanders who make up gang members are still causing massive and disproportionate harm. That’s why this Government is giving police additional tools to do the job. We’re banning gang patches to end intimidation on the streets, giving police the power to issue consorting prohibition notices and dispersal notices to disperse gang gatherings. We are bringing back three strikes and we’re changing the Sentencing Act to ensure real consequences for crime. This Government backs the police and appreciates the outstanding work they do.

Question No. 7—Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations

7. to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: E tautoko ana ia i tāna kī taurangi ki te whakatika i te Ture Takutai Moana 2011; mēnā āe, he aha tāna whakaritenga ki te whakautu ki te Urgent Inquiry Stage 1 Report Takutai Moana Act 2011 nā te Taraipiunara o Waitangi?

[Does he stand by his commitment to amend the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011; if so, what is his plan to respond to the Waitangi Tribunal’s Takutai Moana Act 2011 Urgent Inquiry Stage 1 Report?]

Yes, I stand by my commitment to restore Parliament’s original test for customary marine title under the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011, which required an applicant group to prove they had “exclusively used and occupied … [an area] from 1840 to the present … without substantial interruption”. The Government will consider the tribunal report but remains firm in the view that the original test was, and still is, appropriate.

Teanau Tuiono: Ka tatari kia mau te taringa. Kei te whakamā ia nā te Karauna i takahi te mātāpono o te kāwanatanga pai i te korenga o tētahi tukanga waihanga kaupapa here whai take, whai haepapa hoki nāna?

[I’ll wait for the earpiece to be put on. Is he embarrassed that the Crown is breaching the principle of good government due to the absence of a reasoned and responsible policy development process from him?]

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: In relation to his question “Is he embarrassed?”, no, I am not embarrassed.

Teanau Tuiono: Tēnā pea kei te whakamā ia nā te Karauna i takahi te mātāpono o te mahi tahi nā te korenga ōna i noho tahi ki te iwi Māori i te wā o te hanganga o ngā whakatika marohi?

[Perhaps he is embarrassed that it is the Crown that is breaching the principle of partnership by his failing to consult with Māori during the development of the proposed amendments?]

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: In relation to the question of consultation, of course this is a bill that is yet to be introduced to the House and will be going through a normal select committee process—well, going through a select committee process—and there has been some consultation with various iwi groups; I’ve met with a number of them and also have, obviously, had full discussions with groups such as the iwi leaders groups as well. So we continue to work our way through this, but in simple terms, what we’re trying to achieve is to restore a test that was laid out in the legislation that was changed materially by a Court of Appeal decision.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the Minister confirm that the unbroken connection back to 6 February 1840 came with the support of all the coastal tribes, led by Api Mahuika in 2004, and that also it was followed up by a mandate gained at the last election—and it’s called democracy?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I can confirm that there was a large degree of support for the original bill that was passed with the support of the Māori Party in 2011, and it had that test, which I’ve outlined: “exclusively used and occupied … [an area] since 1840 to the present … without substantial interruption”.

Teanau Tuiono: Kei te whakamā ia nā te Karauna i takahia te mātāpono o te tino rangatiratanga kua whakamahi i te kāwanatanga ki runga i ngā mōtika Māori engari kāore ia i whakatakoto i ngā taunakitanga ka kī atu kāore e tiaki ana te motika tūmatanui, te pānga rānei i tēnei wā, ā, me kaha ake te tiaki?

[Is he embarrassed that the Crown is breaching the principle of tino rangatiratanga by exercising kāwanatanga over Māori rights without him providing any evidence that the public right or interest is currently not protected and needs to be further protected?]

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I accidentally pulled out my thing [earpiece] and I didn’t hear it. Could we try that again?

Teanau Tuiono: Ka taea te kōrero anō, e te Pīka. Ka tatari au kia mau ia i te taringa whakapākehā kōrero. Kia mau koe i tō—kia ora. Kei te whakamā ia nā te Karauna i takahi te mātāpono o te tino rangatiratanga kua whakamahi i te kāwanatanga ki runga i ngā mōtika Māori, engari kāore ia i whakatakoto i ngā taunakitanga ka kī atu kāore e tiaki ana te motika tūmatanui, te pānga rānei i tēnei wā, ā, me kaha ake te tiaki?

[I can say it again, Mr Speaker. I’ll wait until he has put on his interpretation earpiece. Put on your—thank you. Is he embarrassed that the Crown is breaching the principle of tino rangatiratanga by exercising kāwanatanga over Māori rights without him providing any evidence that the public right or interest is currently not protected and needs to be further protected?]

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, in terms of the Government governing, which seems to be the question, that is appropriate. We were elected to do so, we had a coalition agreement reflecting the statements of other parties, and we are simply trying to restore the test that we feel was clear in the legislation passed in 2011 that was changed substantially by a Court of Appeal decision, which, effectively, took away the word “exclusively” from the formulation of words that I read out in the beginning. We think that’s appropriate to balance the rights of—all New Zealanders have an interest in what goes on in the marine and coastal space, and those are substantially taken away by the granting of customary marine title. So there was always to be a high threshold, and that is what the legislation covered.

Teanau Tuiono: He pātai tāpiri—ka tatari kia mau ia i te taringa; ka pai—kei te mōhio kē ia kua whakatūpato te Taraipiunara ki a ia kei te takahi marika te huarahi a te Kāwanatanga i te Tiriti, ā, e whai ana anō i te huarahi o te Ture Takutai Moana 2004, ki te pērā, ka ū ia ki te whakakore i āna panonitanga marohi?

[A supplementary question—I’ll wait for him to affix his earpiece; ka pai—is he aware that the tribunal has warned him that the Government’s path “is in clear Treaty breach and repeats the approach of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004”, and, if so, will he commit to scrapping his proposed amendments?]

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, I won’t commit to scrapping the proposed amendments. They are something that the Government has put together, and that’s all I have to say on the matter.

Question No. 8—Police

8. to the Minister of Police: Ko taku pātai ki te Minita o ngā Pirihimana o Aotearoa.

[My question is to the Minister of Police.]

What advice, if any, has he received on gang members either getting unlawful access to firearms or using shooting ranges?

Much of the advice that I’ve received regarding firearms includes advice specifically relating to those topics—briefings info 23-02 and info 24-35. Both provide specific advice on the topics. These have previously been released under the Official Information Act. The member is aware that the titles of other advice I’ve received are proactively released monthly on the Police website.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Has he received any advice from Police that the Comancheros, or any other gangs and their associates, have used gun ranges to practise their shooting skills?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I’d have to go back and check on any specific advice around that, but one thing that I will tell the member is that the advice that I had as the incoming Minister is that there had been a massive proliferation of firearms and the use of firearms by gang members under the previous Government.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. That was an incredibly straight question asking for additional information from the answer that the Minister gave to a primary question. There was no political nature to that. It was seeking—

SPEAKER: No, look, I totally agree with you. The answer was quite out of line with the advice that I gave the House earlier this afternoon. You can consider that to be a question that you can ask again.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Has he received advice from Police that gang members and their associates have used gun ranges to practise their shooting skills?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, as I said, I’d have to go back—no. Immediately to mind, no. I don’t recall that advice. However, I’d have to go back and check. I receive a large amount of advice. I’d have to go back and check that.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What advice have Police provided him on the proposed changes to non-pistol ranges specified in the Ministry of Justice discussion document that include a system of self-regulation that will be in place for those ranges and that Police will have limited powers for monitoring and enforcement?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I receive a large amount of advice. Again, I’d have to go back and check on that. But the one thing that I would reassure the member of is this: the Police have got an important role in terms of the enforcement and managing of firearms in this country. They’ll continue to have an important role. This Government—this coalition Government—intends to make our country much safer than it has been in relation to illegal firearms.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order, Mr Speaker. This is the Minister of Police, who’s just spoken about a significant operation on the Comancheros. He’s just been asked if he knows if they’ve been on a gun range. He doesn’t know that. He’s also been asked if Police have provided advice on how the gun ranges are going to be regulated in the future. They’re some pretty basic questions that you would think the Minister of Police in New Zealand should be able to answer.

SPEAKER: Well—[Interruption] We’re on a point of order. He has said that he will check on one of your answers, and that’s quite a reasonable thing for a Minister to do, because he started off by saying no but wants the surety of checking. On the other issue, it’s a policy matter that clearly hasn’t advanced yet. I think his answer was quite acceptable.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What advice has he received from Police regarding the proposal to exclude A-category firearms from the registry, which would also exclude alpha-carbines?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: So the advice and the information that the member is seeking—she’s getting well ahead of herself. No decisions have been made on that. Ministers continue to receive advice, and that advice will be used and taken into account when decisions are made by Cabinet.

SPEAKER: Question—

Hon Ginny Andersen: I’ve got a supplementary.

SPEAKER: Oh. Still? All right. When you’re ready.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Who does he agree with regarding the firearms registry, the criminal quoted in the New Zealand Herald who diverted firearms used in the tragic Auckland shooting when he said the registry “stops [people] doing what we are doing”, or Nicole McKee, who said, “It’s going to be more costly, and it’s going to make people fearful for their own safety.”?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I think, in relation to the register, there’s two things going on. I’ve been very clear, as the police Minister, that the register has got an important role to play around firearms safety, without a doubt, in this country. The point that Minister Nicole McKee is making is that we’re doing a review of it to make sure that it’s efficient and that it’s delivering what we need as a country.

Question No. 9—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

9. to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What announcements has the Minister made regarding company director identification?

I recently announced that we intend to introduce a unique identifier for all company directors. The reform is aimed at improving corporate governance and serves two important functions. First, it enables directors’ home addresses to be removed from the Companies Register which has important safety implications. And, second, it makes it easier to track directors and shareholders across a variety of companies which is part of our efforts to tackle harmful practices like phoenixing, which is the practice of deliberately dissolving a company, leaving behind unpaid debt, and immediately setting up a new company.

Tim Costley: How will these changes protect consumers?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: By introducing a unique ID number, consumers and law enforcement agencies will be able to trace the activities of directors before deciding whether to engage their services. This level of transparency will help prevent harmful activities and give consumers more confidence in the businesses they interact with.

Tim Costley: How will these changes protect directors?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: For directors, these reforms offer an important layer of protection. Currently, directors and shareholders are required to publicly disclose their home addresses. This poses privacy and personal safety risks. Under the new system, directors will be able to provide a service address, such as the address of the company or professional adviser, which means they can be reached for official purposes, such as serving papers. This strikes a good balance between transparency and safety.

Tim Costley: How will these changes incentivise good people to become directors?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: An ambition with these reforms is to make the director role safer and more accountable, to encourage more qualified individuals to step into governance roles. This is all part of our plan to rebuild the economy and improve outcomes for New Zealanders. This can only be done if skilled individuals are willing to lend their time and expertise to help businesses to flourish.

Question No. 10—Justice

10. to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all his statements and actions in respect of the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill and the bills into which it has been divided?

Yes. In particular, I stand by my statement, “For too long gang members have been allowed to behave as if they are above the law. This Government is serious about restoring law and order, and the tolerance gangs enjoyed under the previous regime, has ended.”

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Does he stand by his statement that the banning of gang patches will go through the full process, so there will be a select committee and so people in public will be able to have their say on this legislation; if so, does he consider it is a normal select committee process for last-minute amendments encroaching into free speech and private spaces to skip the select committee?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, I do stand by that original statement. We had a select committee process, and issues around enforcement were raised and, subsequent to the select committee, we made some extra changes. We’re all about giving the police the tools that they need to deal with the 50 percent increase in gang membership that we’ve seen over the past little while and we’re going to give them those tools.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Why was the amendment inserting an offence of residing in a place where a gang patch is present not referred to the Justice Committee when the Government had a comprehensive briefing identifying the issue on 27 March 2024 whilst submissions were still open before the select committee?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, what we’ve introduced by our first Amendment Paper was a set of escalating consequences for what we hope will only be a very small group of people who openly flout the gang patch ban. So if you’re caught three times within five years flouting the gang patch ban, you will face further consequences that intrude into your own home. That’s very uncomfortable, but it’s very easily avoided by not flouting the ban many times in public. So that’s what we’re going to do and we think that’s appropriate.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question related to why it didn’t go to select committee, and the entirety of that answer was about the policy underpinning the change itself. I wonder if the Minister might address why this change didn’t go to select committee, considering that select committee had submissions open when this was a live issue known to the Minister.

SPEAKER: The Minister might like to respond to that point of order.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, why is because the bill that we introduced went to the select committee. During the select committee process, a number of issues were raised, and this change is a response to some of those issues that were raised through the select committee process.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Why did he not seek the opinion of the Attorney-General regarding the proposed offence of residing in a place where a gang patch is present, given the significant New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues and given that this change was being considered on 27 March 2024?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I frequently converse with the Attorney-General.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Is there a double standard, given the Minister asked the Justice Committee to defer the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill and the Ram Raid Offending and Related Measures Amendment Bill to consider proposed Government amendments but didn’t do so in respect of the Gangs Legislation Bill?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, like every Government, we have things that we’re particularly keen to progress quickly, and the gang patch bill is something that we’re very keen to progress quickly because we’re very conscious of the fact that there has been a very significant increase in gang membership over the past five years, and we’re moving on it quickly.

Hon Nicola Willis: Does the Minister ever have cause to reflect whether it would be useful if members of this House had as much concern and time for the rights of victims of crime as they seem to have for defending the rights of gang members who terrorise New Zealanders?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, I do often reflect on that as an issue. My brief answer would be to say that the people that we have in mind in this legislation are the ordinary New Zealanders who should be able to go about their lives without fear and intimidation of gang members in their communities.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister tried to reach out across the House to get the support of other parties to support the victim and not the criminal?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I’ve adopted the same approach that I’ve learnt from the previous Government in terms of cross-party efforts and I hope sometimes to improve on them.

Question No. 11—Resources

My question is to the Minister for Resources: what announcements has—[Interruption]

Sorry, Mr Arbuckle—just hold on. Questions are heard in silence. Please start your question again.

11. to the Minister for Resources: What announcements has he made regarding critical minerals?

I have had the pleasure of announcing a list of critical minerals. I am very moved by the observations of the World Bank that over the next 25 years, mining activity must expand by 500 percent. In fact, transitional minerals are key to climate change outcomes. New Zealand, through this new list, will be able to identify those minerals which are useful and valuable to our economic resilience.

Jamie Arbuckle: What is the purpose of the critical minerals list?

Hon SHANE JONES: The purpose of this list is to ensure that overseas investors, overseas partners, along with domestic investors and other stakeholders, including policy makers, have high-quality information to ensure the mineral sector can contribute not only to our economic resilience but to ensuring that we are not reduced to bringing in minerals from other sides of the world, global distant destinations where the great apes are threatened.

Jamie Arbuckle: How does the critical minerals list fit into the overall minerals strategy?

Hon SHANE JONES: The overarching minerals strategy of this Government is to rehabilitate, re-legitimise, and to enable investors, communities, and, indeed, users of critically important minerals to have the confidence that we—our own country—have these minerals, can use them. With the eventual passage of the fast-track bill, I look forward to the growth.

Jamie Arbuckle: Why is “Aggregate and Sand” on the draft critical minerals list?

Hon SHANE JONES: Minerals have to serve, often, very domestic purposes. Aggregate and sand have become increasingly expensive. It is no longer possible, in many areas, to secure resource consents. Unless those resources are treated as being critically important, the cost of infrastructure recovery will go up. I would point out also that gold and coal are not on the list, but I’ll take coal before dole any day.

Simon Court: What would the Minister say to those who campaign against mining for minerals, particularly those who use cellphones in order to campaign against those minerals?

Hon SHANE JONES: Sadly, far too many New Zealanders have been deluded by misinformation in respect of minerals. Minerals, including vanadium, located in inordinately large content and quantities off the coast of Taranaki, will add not only to the climate change journey but they represent a new source of great wealth. Sadly, we’ve had a situation where misinformation has overcome facts, but these decisions, such as what the member refers to, will be made on the basis of economic rationalism, science, and technology.

Question No. 12—Revenue

12. to the Minister of Revenue: Does he stand by his statement that Inland Revenue will “deliver on the real priorities for our tax system”; if so, does he support all their work?

Yes, I stand by that statement and I support the work of IRD. In particular, I’m pleased to see Inland Revenue working hard to roll out FamilyBoost, which will see parents and caregivers receive up to $150 per fortnight towards their early childhood costs. I’m also pleased to see Inland Revenue focusing on compliance and enforcement activities, reducing tax debt owed to the Crown in order to fund public services that people deserve.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement, “What I can tell you is definitely not part of our conversation is a capital gains tax, a wealth tax.”, and, if so, why is Inland Revenue consulting on “adding new tax bases to our current mix.”?

Hon SIMON WATTS: I can categorically be clear with that member that, on this side of the House, we are not pursuing an agenda around capital gains tax, as on that side of the House it is definitely on the agenda, without doubt. On this side of the House, we are clear that we are wanting to ensure that we deliver income relief and personal income tax relief to those low and middle income New Zealanders, and I am proud to be part of a Government that has delivered that.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why is Inland Revenue consulting on “pros and cons of taxes on payroll (including social security contributions), land, real property … inheritances or estates, turnover and transactions,” when Nicola Willis has ruled them out?

Hon SIMON WATTS: It would be fair to say that Inland Revenue will be undertaking a range of inquiries in terms of opportunities to ensure that we have got an appropriate broad based - low rate tax system. I support Inland Revenue in regards to the work that it is undertaking.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why in the Budget 2024 documents released last Thursday are there so many sections “redacted due to active consideration” under headings such as “Revenue-raising Options” and “Revenue Options”?

Hon SIMON WATTS: As that member will know, as a previous associate revenue Minister, that as part of the Budget process, we undertake a wide range of advice in regards to that and there are elements that continue to be under active consideration. That is not new; that is the way that we operate. This is a Government that is focused on outcomes and ensuring that we’re delivering those outcomes to hard-working New Zealanders.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister how on earth can he possibly accuse the Labour Party of supporting a capital gains tax in over four years when it had the power and under two leaders they ruled a capital gains tax out?

SPEAKER: Well, you can answer the questions so much as it relates to a previous supplementary and his own portfolio.

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, I’m not going to be one to try and instil the virtues that are driving the rationale on the other side of the House, but what I can be clear about is that, on this side of the House, we are focused on delivering income tax relief to hard-working New Zealanders. We are a Government that has delivered that outcome, and we will continue to look at opportunities to support our people.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why, in the Budget documents released last Thursday, is there listed under “Active Consideration” measures considering up to $1 billion of revenue-gathering options and savings options for student loans?

Hon SIMON WATTS: What I can be clear about is that when I came in as Minister of Revenue, I inherited nearly $8 billion of outstanding tax debt, up 40 percent since 2022. A large portion of that relates to student loan debt. As a Government, we are keen to ensure that tax money that is owed to this Government should be collected, because the counterfactual of that is that that money needs to be borrowed, and we need to ensure that we invest in public services that New Zealanders deserve.

Question No. 1 to Minister

Mr Speaker, can I just make two points of order: firstly, just one in relation to question No. 1, in regards to the supplementary question from my colleague Stuart Smith, and I ask that you reflect on whether or not his question should have been allowed to continue. Our view is that it was in line with the primary question.

Well, that’s, effectively, questioning a ruling, which is never a wise thing.

OK. Thank you, Mr Speaker.