Oral Questions

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, with the usual caveats.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his commitment made at Koroneihana that “We can value our differences, [we can] debate them constructively while still respecting each other,”; if so, does he consider it constructive to open a six-month select committee process on the Treaty principles bill when experts such as Dayle Takitimu have said it is “stirring up race fuelled rhetoric in this country,”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With the greatest of respect to Mr Takitimu, he is not an expert, and we are slightly annoyed at the number of people—

Hon Members: She.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: She, rather—she’s not an expert, yes. Well, “they” and “them”—it’s because I’m talking to the Greens now, right? Look, they’re not an expert, and we are sick and tired of people stomping past five leading judges from 1987—

Tākuta Ferris: She’s the leading expert in this country today.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I beg your pardon?

Tākuta Ferris: She’s the leading expert on Tiriti analysis in the country today.

SPEAKER: No, hang on—wait on.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, to you she might be, but you know nothing about it, do you?

SPEAKER: Wait on, we’re not going to have that sort of exchange.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes. Well, Mr Speaker, the banality of ignorance is to be ignorant without knowing it, and that’s what you’ve heard over there. So our point is that of course we want discussion and consultation on the widest number of things, and democracy sometimes takes time.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his statement that a referendum on Te Tiriti would be “divisive and unhelpful”, and, if so, why is his Cabinet seeking advice on holding a referendum on the Treaty principles bill?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Sometimes in life, as in politics, chronology matters. If the bill doesn’t get into the second reading or the third reading, there will not be a referendum, will there? So, accordingly, some of us are not concerned about that.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister think of anything that is a bigger waste of the public’s time than allowing a six-month - long select committee process on a divisive so-called Treaty principles bill when the majority of Government has already committed to opposing that very bill?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With respect, often there is legislation that comes to this House, often with a chance of possibly passing and at some times no chance, but we don’t, as a Parliament, say that we won’t discuss it, and that’s where we sit in terms of our democratic process. But I can think of all sorts of court cases which are a gross waste of the public’s time and money, where the mahi has been done when that person is not even here, and, of course, the court case is now involving taxpayers paying for the court proceedings as we speak—and that member from the Green Party would know all about that case, wouldn’t she?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Who benefits from allowing the Treaty principles bill to have a six-month select committee process?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the reality is that on this side of the House, we’ve always been open-minded, prepared to hear others’ views, and to have a discussion, and that’s what we were saying when we looked at this matter and we still look forward to that process. We hope that those who have certain views will come along and share their views; those who are opposed, likewise. But I do not think that it is a massive obstruction of our lifestyle to consider what has been going on in this Parliament since 1854—that is, a democratic process.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Are we to take, then, from the Prime Minister’s comments that they are open-minded about what’s coming before this House and that they may, in fact, change their mind on supporting the Treaty principles bill beyond second reading?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I don’t know how some people have difficulty with this, but if you look at the coalition agreement, two parties have agreed to support it to a first reading only. Now, I’ll say it one more time, for the media’s sake: read the coalition agreement.

Question No. 2—Finance

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

Economic data can be forward-looking, reflecting people’s intentions and expectations; it can be about the here and now; or be backward-looking if there is a long lag between measurement and reporting. In terms of the here and now, I’ve seen the latest ANZ Business Outlook survey, which includes a measure of firms’ current activity compared to a year ago. This measure improved slightly compared to the previous survey but is still weak, reflecting where the economy is at the moment.

Ryan Hamilton: When will the next GDP figures be released?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: GDP results for the June quarter will come out next Thursday. These are also likely to be weak, with many forecasters picking a negative quarter. We’ll see what transpires on Thursday, but GDP is a good example of backward-looking data. The three months to June seem a long way back in the rearview mirror, especially as the Reserve Bank has now started dropping interest rates.

Ryan Hamilton: Has she seen any forward-looking economic data?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. This is where the news gets better. The ANZ Business Outlook includes a measure of a firm’s outlook for their own activity looking 12 months into the future. This is very strong—in fact, the strongest outlook in seven years. The survey also measures overall business confidence. This is an even more extraordinary result. Business confidence has risen sharply and is now at its highest level in a decade. These surveys, of course, can move around from month to month; however, on balance, while businesses have been doing it tough for a long time, the ANZ survey is a strong indication that they see better times ahead.

Ryan Hamilton: What sort of policies would damage business confidence?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: About the worst thing I can think of is imposing a capital gains tax on businesses, because a capital gains tax would increase the tax that businesses pay. It would tax small-business owners when they sell up and retire. It would increase taxes on productive assets, while exempting the family home, thereby encouraging people to put more and more money into their house. New Zealand has a capital-shallow economy, and what businesses don’t need is higher taxes on capital.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why has he failed to condemn Shane Jones for calling a judge a communist when his Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, says, “It should not have been said.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As with the process of coalition Governments, we improve the outcome by consultation, and that’s what happened here.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why did he allow the Deputy Prime Minister to discuss the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s Budget bid with him instead of the Minister of Finance?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I want to say, on behalf of—

Hon Shane Jones: Fake news.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Every Minister on this side of the House who was asked to report to the Prime Minister their views with respect to their portfolio for the forthcoming Budget—and this was done last year. We all wrote to the Prime Minister, as did I. I shared it, of course, with the Minister—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: The Prime Minister wrote to the Prime Minister?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: He wrote to himself, did he?

SPEAKER: I’m sure he did.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If I’d been away on Celebrity Treasure Island, I’d probably have lost the plot too, but the reality is that we all did that, and here we’ve got an extraordinary circumstance where the Deputy Prime Minister of that time is now being accused of talking to the Prime Minister. How horrifying is that!

Scott Willis: Supplementary question?

SPEAKER: No—Carmel Sepuloni.

Scott Willis: Does the Prime Minister—

SPEAKER: No, no—nice try. The primary always gets three.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Given he has previously stated that his party won’t support the Treaty principles bill beyond the first reading, is the $4 million the bill is projected to cost wasteful spending?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We did see the economics of the former adviser to the Labour Party, Mr Renney. It is grossly wrong and can be proven with the greatest of ease, and so we shouldn’t—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: It’s way more.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Way more?

Hon Willie Jackson: It’s about $10 million.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, that’s what I’d expect from those two economists over there, too. What I don’t understand is: if they know so much about economics, why didn’t they stop Grant Robertson from blowing the whole purse? Both of you. But the reality is—I respect Mr Renney but, on this occasion, he let himself down academically terribly.

Scott Willis: Does the Prime Minister think that the current structure of the electricity market was possibly a factor in the loss of jobs and the closure of mills in the Ruapehu district?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that that matter is under review, but if you go back to 1988, that’s what I said back then, and I still stand by it.

Scott Willis: Will the Government commit to separating the generation and retail functions of the gentailers to ensure fair and transparent pricing for regional communities, industry, and households, and, if not, why not?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It’s very, very clear that we’ve got a crisis on our hands that we inherited, worsened, of course, by the appalling decision made by the then Minister of Energy and Resources to shut down, for example, Marsden Point, covertly as part of a deal, and she’s never ever told anybody about that, including colleagues on her side of the House. It will come out very shortly, but I’ll come back to the point. All of that’s under review, because it’s an urgent matter now.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why won’t he save the taxpayer money and shoot the bill down now, given he and the leader of New Zealand First have said they won’t support the bill past first reading?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because we have an undertaking, which we gave to another party, and we stick by our word.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who is correct: Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters, who said, “How can you have a referendum when, after the first reading, that’s it?” or David Seymour, who said, “You just never know how circumstances might change.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Modesty prevents me from answering that question.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who is correct: Sir Apirana Ngata, who said, “Article two states that ‘The Treaty guarantees to the Maori people their rights and possessions to their lands, their forests and their fisheries.’ ”, or David Seymour, whose Treaty principles explainers ignore this and merely say, “all New Zealanders”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Actually, Ngata did not say that about article 2. He said it was about their positions and possessions. That’s the difference. I would ask her to go back and read that old treatise from 1922—102 years old now—and read it with great clarity, and for that member’s sake, I’ll make sure it has got pictures.

Question No. 4—Health

4. to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has the Government made about delivering the healthcare New Zealanders need?

New Zealanders deserve to know that if they or their loved ones become unwell, they will receive the healthcare they need when they need it. That’s why, this morning, I outlined details of Health New Zealand’s plan to achieve the Government’s ambitious health targets. Our targets are tightly focused on five things that really matter: faster cancer treatment, increasing childhood immunisation, shorter stays in emergency departments, and shorter wait times for surgery. To achieve these targets, it will take a lot of work. That’s why today’s implementation plan is important, because it provides clarity to the sector on what areas need to improve in order to achieve these targets. This is a key milestone.

Miles Anderson: What will a focus on health targets look like for New Zealanders?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Clear health targets are key to improving the performance of our health system. They focus resources, attention, and accountability on outcomes that really matter. I agree with clinicians: targets will save lives. However, the introduction of targets alone won’t drive all the change we need to see. We’ve got to get back to basics. That’s why the actions detailed in our comprehensive implementation plan focus on seemingly simple things that will ensure consistency and stability across the system. Our targets are designed so that every New Zealander should experience the change for themselves, however and whenever they experience healthcare.

Miles Anderson: How does the Government intend to achieve these targets?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: As I have said previously, we’ve got to get back to basics and tackle the seemingly simple things first. That’s why we are planning to establish more community infusion centres so that patients can access their chemotherapy closer to home. We’re also looking to expand the number of beds in operating theatres in public hospitals and make greater use of capacity in private hospitals. We will work towards separation between acute care and planned care so that operating theatres can be used more efficiently and result in fewer same-day cancellations. There will also be new radiotherapy machines for cancer treatment and a focus on patients who have waited more than a year to be assessed or treated. We’ve also got to make sure that we have the right workforce in the right place at the right time to help deliver these actions.

Miles Anderson: How is the Government investing in the health system to meet these health targets?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The Commissioner of Health New Zealand has assured me that these targets can and will be achieved within current resources and will come with regular and transparent reporting. Our Government has already invested more money into health than any Government in New Zealand’s history, with the system receiving around $30 billion a year. With that investment, we are looking to improve efficiencies and improve health outcomes. That’s because every dollar spent on health is precious. However, dollar signs and numbers on a page won’t be the only way New Zealanders see change in the health system. We’re committed to delivering timely access to quality healthcare that New Zealanders need.

Question No. 5—Health

5. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by the $1.4 billion in cuts to the health system, when extended wait times in Emergency Departments have led to a patient death?

Thank you. Mr Speaker, I extend my sympathy to the family of the patient who recently passed away in the Rotorua emergency department (ED) and acknowledge the sadness they will be feeling. Health New Zealand treats any adverse event involving a patient in their care extremely seriously, and an internal review is being taken. As this case has been referred to the coroner and an internal review is under way, it would be inappropriate to comment further. I do stand by the $1.4 billion of reprioritisation, which will improve patient outcomes.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: Is it acceptable that patients, including myself, are being placed in ED corridors, with whiteboards used for privacy, because they are short on beds, stressed, fatigued, and understaffed?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What is acceptable is to have the best quality of healthcare that we can possibly deliver in our emergency departments. I have seen exactly what that member is describing, and I’m having discussions with Health New Zealand as to how we can do a better job in our emergency departments.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: How can the Minister be trusted when his ministry denies front-line hiring freezes, yet doctors and nurses at Middlemore Hospital have told me that they’re overworked and understaffed due to those very freezes?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I accept the assurances that Health New Zealand have made to me.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: The Māori Party have used up their allocation of questions for the week.

Question No. 6—Justice

6. to the Associate Minister of Justice: Does she agree with the Prime Minister, “What I would say is that no decisions have been made about semi-automatic weapons. We’re going to be focused on public safety, and those conversations are still to happen”; if so, why?

Yes, because that is the truth, despite near-daily attempts by the member and her party to scaremonger instead of sticking to the facts. The Government is drafting legislation to move responsibility for the Arms Act and firearms policy from the police portfolio to the justice portfolio. This is an administrative change, and it is clearly signalled in the National-ACT coalition agreement, so it should come as no surprise. This will mean transferring regulation-making powers, cost-recovery settings, and provisions related to the Minister’s Arms Advisory Group and reviewing the Arms Act 1983. As the member knows, given her experience as a former Minister, any changes to regulations require Cabinet’s agreement. I do not have the power to make regulatory changes at my discretion. To suggest anything else is totally wrong.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Did Cabinet agree to amend section 74A of the Arms Act on 20 May 2024?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Cabinet agreed to fulfil phase three of the firearms work programme, which is to move the regulatory component from the New Zealand Police to the Ministry of Justice. In order to do that, we had to implement certain aspects of regulations, and that’s exactly what we did.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Did she issue drafting instructions to amend section 74A of the Arms Act, as invited by Cabinet on 20 May 2024?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I’m going to refer back to my primary answer, which actually states very, very clearly that in order to make the movements that we needed to make, we had to make changes. The section that has been changed was implemented by the Labour Party in the first place in 2019 and 2020. They should have perhaps been a bit more careful with what they put in the law if they were worried about what subsequent Governments may do. But we’ve made very clear our intent to remove the regulatory function from the New Zealand Police to the Ministry of Justice at this stage, and we had to make these changes to do that.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I listened really carefully to the answer. It was at length, but it was a very specific question about a very specific section. Now, yesterday, the Minister again responded to all the questions that were about this section—spoke of other sections; did not speak of this section. We let that go. But in that instance, referring to the primary answer and then adding additional information, she still failed to address the specific question.

SPEAKER: Well, a specific question that seeks an answer that is either yes or no can be asked, but you can’t expect to get an answer. The member can have an extra question to further her exploration of this matter.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Well, speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: No, no, I’ve ruled on it.

Hon Ginny Andersen: No? OK, all right. Is Cabinet minute 173, that invites the Associate Minister to issue drafting instructions to amend section 74A—has that Cabinet instruction been actioned by the Minister by her initiating drafting instructions?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Matters that have gone through Cabinet will be made public at a time that is meant to be made public, and I guess when that happens, the member will well know at that time.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. The member asked a question referencing a Cabinet minute that she has got publicly, and therefore it is inappropriate for the Minister to brush this off saying that the information will be made public at the appropriate time when it already has. The House deserves a response.

SPEAKER: I’d invite the—

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. That intervention cannot be true. Speakers’ rulings are very clear—207/1—the question was addressed, and it’s not your job to ascertain accuracy.

SPEAKER: No, but it is my job to judge “address”.

Hon Shane Jones: And it was addressed.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s your opinion; it may not be mine. So I’d ask the Minister to have another crack at answering that question.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Yes, and there will be a bill coming to this House imminently.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is she confident that Cabinet was fully aware that by changing the responsible Minister for section 74A, as per Cabinet minute 173, it would give her the power to determine what is a prohibited firearm by Order in Council?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I think I’ve made it really, really clear that the changes that we have made were in order to be able to take the regulatory function from the New Zealand Police and put it into the Ministry of Justice. If we were to utilise any of the other provisions such as what that member is suggesting, it would need to go through Cabinet and get Cabinet approval. There is no need for me to ask Cabinet about something that has not happened.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does the change to the responsible Minister in section 74A give her the power to determine what is a prohibited firearm by Order in Council?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I refer to the answers that I have given repeatedly today, which are that any future decisions around what that member is asking would need to go to Cabinet and get their approval. That has not happened. We have not had advice. We are not even discussing that. This is about removing the regulatory powers from the New Zealand Police and putting them into the power of the Ministry of Justice.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Was the Prime Minister incorrect to state that no decisions had been made in relation to prohibited semi-automatic firearms?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Yes.

SPEAKER: Question No. 7—

Hon Ginny Andersen: I’ve got—no, I’ve got—

SPEAKER: No, you haven’t. Has she? Come on, get organised.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she consider that she should have advised her Cabinet colleagues on the details of section 74A and also the political risk associated with transferring to her the power to determine what is a prohibited firearm?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I don’t see that there’s a political risk in having somebody with a whole lot of firearms safety background, education, and knowledge being in charge of firearms legislative changes. We can certainly do, and will do, a heck of a lot better than what that side of the House did when they’ve caused more harm in the community and loss of trust and confidence in the New Zealand Police. My advice to Cabinet is based on good, solid, sound public safety outcomes, and I’m proud of it.

Question No. 7—Education

7. to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about driving structured literacy in schools?

Yesterday, I was really proud to announce that from 1 October, schools and kura with years 0 to 3 students will receive between $500 and $5,000 per year over the next four years to support them to buy structured literacy resources to drive support for students in their reading achievement. These resources will include things like decodable books, flash cards, games, mini whiteboards, and other materials, in addition to the free decodable books and resources already available from the Ministry of Education. I’m committed to supporting our amazing teachers every step of the way as we work together to implement structured literacy so that we lift achievement in reading.

Tom Rutherford: What did her announcement include relating to the phonics check?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I also announced that trials of the new phonics check in 80 primary schools are about to begin in both English and, for the first time, a purpose-built phonics check tool in te reo Māori, prior to a nationwide roll-out next year. In English-medium schools, they will be done after 20 and 40 weeks. In Māori-medium schools, to acknowledge the complexity that arises when children are learning in two languages, we are introducing an auditory check at 20 weeks to check the ability of tamariki Māori to detect sounds. This will act as an early alert for learners who are having difficulties with their hearing. Then, these tamariki will also participate in 20-, 40- and 55-week phonics checks. By checking on every child’s progress in their first year of schooling and intervening early where extra support may be required, we’re making sure that all children are getting the very best start in learning to read.

SPEAKER: Good—concise answers are good.

Tom Rutherford: What other announcements has she made recently to accelerate reading in schools?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: From term 1, 2025, this Government has reprioritised $33 million of funding from Reading Recovery directly into interventions which align with structured literacy, to ensure consistency of approach. This support includes 271 fulltime-equivalent roles, as was the case under Reading Recovery. Applications have now opened for schools to apply for this resource for years 0 to 2. These changes will work hand in hand with the knowledge-rich curriculum, decodable books, and other resources, as well as the phonics check, to help support our kids to learn to read.

Tom Rutherford: What feedback has she received from this announcement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Yesterday, the principal of Boulcott School, Rachael, said, “Implementing structured literacy for us here at Boulcott has been … really positive … and we’ve seen [incredible] results.” Literacy expert Dr Pamela Snow said, “they’re taking a very systematic and thorough approach.” and that “There’s no time like the present and the evidence has been … for a long time that a change is needed if we’re going to be ensuring success for the highest number of children regardless of postcode, level of disadvantage, [and] other factors”. And this morning, finally, Alice Wilson from Lifting Literacy Aotearoa said, “We are delighted this Government really has taken this on wholeheartedly”.

Question No. 8—Disability Issues

8. to the Minister for Disability Issues: Does she stand by her statement, “That is why we are prioritising disabled people, their families, and carers”; if so, how can she justify a funding freeze for residential care facilities?

on behalf of the Minister for Disability Issues: Thank you, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Minister, yes. Maintaining funding at existing levels for residential care providers was recommended by the independent review into disability support services, led by Sir Maarten Wevers, to enable an urgent assessment of the residential care pricing model to be undertaken. The independent review found that despite no increases in the number of people in residential care, cost increases to residential care providers had exceeded inflation, and it found it was unclear how these costs were being monitored. The independent review said the urgent assessment of the residential care pricing model, and I quote, “will stabilise the financial underpinnings of services to a group of clients with some of the highest needs.”. Overall, a record $2.6 billion is available for disability support services this financial year due to this Government’s decision to inject an additional $1.1 billion over five years in Budget 2024.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What does she say to the mother who is too old to care for her high-needs, intellectually disabled adult son, who can get aggressive and will no longer be able to transition into a residential facility that he was approved for, because of her Government’s freeze?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: It’s very important to be clear that there has been no freeze or reduction on admissions into residential care, and that those decisions continue to be made by local needs assessment and service coordination centres (NASCs). I’ll repeat it again: there is no freeze on admissions into residential care.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How is she prioritising disabled people and their carers when Parents of Vision Impaired (NZ) has said that “The restrictions are so severe that there is significant risk of harm to disabled people and their families, particularly for ageing parents who are finding care work increasingly difficult.”?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Again, there has been no freeze on admissions into residential care. The funding has been maintained while a review can take place. Can I just be very clear, also, that the review that took place found an alarming inequity of services across the system, and so this Government is very focused on ensuring there is fairness and sustainability of disability services across the disability sector.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How is she prioritising disabled people when St John of God Hauora Trust has a wait-list of disabled people needing a room and an empty six-bedroom home that is staffed, but says the admission freeze means that it’s likely to remain empty?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: There has been no freeze on admissions into residential care. There has been a pause and a maintenance of the funding for residential care. The process is the same as it has always been—that the local NASC will make a decision based on need.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Will she commit to reversing the freeze that was laid out in a document sent to NASCs that is preventing disabled people from accessing residential care that they were approved for, given the risk of harm that it has caused?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: There is a pause and a maintenance of the existing funding while a rapid review is undertaken to understand why residential care costs have gone up beyond the level of inflation. That rapid review will have answers by the beginning of early 2025.

Kahurangi Carter: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Kahurangi Carter. [Interruption] Just wait for a minute. Kahurangi Carter.

Kahurangi Carter: Thank you. Could the Minister outline how freezing funding for residential care, while not increasing community support options, aligns with the Enabling Good Lives principles, particularly the principle of self-determination?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: So, again, existing services continue. Enabling Good Lives continues. The pause and the maintenance of the existing funding is for a short period while the rapid review is undertaken to understand how the cost can have increased for residential care above inflation rates when the numbers going into residential care have not increased.

Kahurangi Carter: What would the Minister say to Anita Nicholls, who has two sons with intellectual disabilities and says, “It actually says quite clearly that people who are in family homes, if a parent becomes unable to support them there is no guarantee from government that a residential place would be provided. And that’s every parent’s worst nightmare.”?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I absolutely know that it is the worst nightmare of every parent with a child with a disability to not be able to get services. But the important thing to remember is that services have not been cut. Services are being maintained. There has always been a process where NASCs undertake prioritisation of needs when accessing residential services.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Mr Speaker, Point of order. I seek leave to table a report that I understand is not publicly released, that shows there is a funding freeze.

SPEAKER: Well, how do you know it’s not publicly released?

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Because I can’t find it publicly. It was sent to me by a provider who said it was leaked.

SPEAKER: Right. Any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Question No. 9—Justice

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

Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. We’re taking many actions; in particular, progressing the Gangs Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill, which will reduce the ability of gangs to operate and cause fear, intimidation, and disruption for New Zealanders. This legislation is a significant step in making our communities safer by providing the police with additional tools to deal with the mayhem on our streets and in our communities created by gangs.

Catherine Wedd: What new tools will be available for police to deal with gangs?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Gangs Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill will prohibit the display of gang patches in public places and, in the case of repeat offences, prohibit possession, full stop. Police will have the ability to issue dispersal notices to break up gang gatherings that disrupt the public, and to issue non-consorting orders to prevent specific gang members from associating. The legislation will also amend the Sentencing Act, making gang membership on its own an aggravating factor, meaning gang members will face tougher consequences for their crimes.

Catherine Wedd: Why is the Government taking action against the fear, intimidation, and disruption that gangs cause in our communities?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Because over the past six years, gang membership increased by 51 percent and at the same time violent crime in our communities went up by 33 percent. We don’t tolerate that. We’re doing this for the law-abiding New Zealanders who should be able to go about their normal lives without fear of being intimidated and preyed upon by organised crime, and that is why this Government is taking action.

Catherine Wedd: Does the Minister agree with commentary that the Government is limiting freedom of speech?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I think it was freedom of expression, and, yes, I do agree with that. We are limiting the freedom of expression of gang members, but we’re also conscious of the fact that New Zealanders have the right to be safe in their communities and to go about their lives without being fearful of violent and intimidatory gangs. If that means preventing a segment of society from associating with each other, preventing them from displaying gang patches, we think that is justified.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: How can the Minister justify the last-minute nature of the amendment banning gang patches in private residences, given the comments of the convener of the Law Society’s Criminal Law Committee, Chris Macklin, who said, “This amendment came so far after the consultation process, and so close to what would be the bill’s third reading, that it’s almost like it’s been railroaded”?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: That is a tough piece of sentencing which will only be involved if somebody repeatedly flouts the law and is convicted three times within five years. So it’s very, very easy to avoid—and that is simply not to be convicted three times in five years for flouting the gang legislation. That’s what we’re going to do, so this Government makes no apologies for passing laws that are about ensuring that ordinary New Zealanders can go about their lives without fear and intimidation on their streets.

Question No. 10—Internal Affairs

10. to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent announcements has she made on passport wait times?

I’m pleased to announce that, as of last week, the wait time for passports has returned to normal and New Zealanders are now advised to allow up to two weeks to receive their passport. This will be welcome news to many New Zealanders who are looking to receive their passports quickly for themselves and their families in time for their travel. After a software upgrade in March caused unexpected delays to passport processing, with expected wait times pushed up to 10 weeks, I’ve been focused on reducing passport wait times as a top priority. Ensuring that New Zealanders continue to receive timely and quality passport services remains a priority for me as a Minister.

Simon Court: What steps were taken to achieve this reduction in wait times?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The department reviewed its processes and identified where system improvements could be made to increase efficiencies, including automating some steps of the process. I would like to thank all the staff who have worked hard to clear the backlog of applications and reduce processing times. I know many people have been working overtime during evenings and weekends to get the wait time back down to two weeks, and I appreciate all of your efforts.

Simon Court: What can New Zealanders expect from the passport service going forward?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I expect the department to maintain the standard wait time of two weeks. The upgraded passport system has delivered benefits to New Zealanders, including the option for families to apply as a group, using an online form rather than multiple paper ones. It has also made it easier for people to report a lost or stolen passport and receive a replacement in a timely manner. I also expect continuous improvement across all of the department services, including citizenships and identity verification.

Question No. 11—Immigration

11. to the Minister of Immigration: Does she stand by her statement to the Education and Workforce Committee that work on the Parent Visa Boost will not start before 2025?

I stand by my full statement, which is “So AEWV this year really had to take precedence because of the high rate of migrant exploitation. I think that’s pretty reasonable. New Zealanders would expect us to get on top of that immediately, so we’ve planned out for the next year to start work on the parent boost visa.”

Hon Phil Twyford: Why did she tell Indian Weekender back in January that she will soon begin working on a mechanism for a five-year renewable parent visa when, in fact, officials won’t begin work on it at all until sometime in 2025?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I told the committee at the time, we had started early scoping work. We’d worked out the types of insurance that would be required for that sort of visa. We’d also worked out that it’s really expensive for that type of insurance. And we’re also working out what are the types of mechanisms we could use to ensure that parents who came here either had access to some type of insurance or some type of payment that would ensure that we could pay for their health requirements while they were here. So early scoping work had taken place, but the detailed policy work that needs to take place for such a visa won’t take place until next year.

Hon Phil Twyford: Does she agree there is a huge unmet demand from people who desperately want a visa that gives them a chance to bring their parents to New Zealand?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Oh, well, I acknowledge that it’s really important for people to visit their family in New Zealand. There is a three-year multiple entry visa that is available, and we know that, since 2022, 25,000 people have applied for that three-year multiple entry visa. So while they’re waiting for the work that we’re going to start early next year—and I’ll be pleased to announce that later next year when it’s available—that pathway is still available for parents and grandparents, and 25,000 people have applied for it.

Hon Phil Twyford: What does she say to Auckland woman Elsa Wang, who told RNZ the time frame for the Parent Visa Boost was—and I quote—“unacceptable” as she thought the Government would introduce the policy soon after coming into power, and now feels let down?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Oh, well, I say to that woman that she should apply for the three-year multiple entry parent visa, like 25,000 other people have done. But I would also say to that woman that we never made any indication that we’d be able to do this visa within our first hundred days or first three months, as policy work takes months and the implementation required just for the IT function alone takes three months. The previous Minister, I’m sure, knows that very well.

Hon Phil Twyford: Will she commit to a time line in which the new visa will be implemented and become operational, and, if not, why not?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ve already committed to starting work on the visa next year. As I’ve already mentioned, it takes a number of months to be able to do the detailed policy work to make sure we get it right, and it takes a further three or four months to get the IT implementation right.

Hon Phil Twyford: Is it correct that coalition partner New Zealand First blocked her from delivering on this campaign promise earlier than next year, and, if so, why did she allow herself to be bullied out of delivering on an election promise by a minor party?

SPEAKER: No, no, no—sit down. The member can have one shot at rewording that question.

Hon Phil Twyford: Is it correct that coalition partner New Zealand First blocked her from delivering on this campaign promise earlier than next year?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I can categorically state that that is completely untrue; in fact, quite the opposite is true in that the coalition agreement that we have with the ACT Party means that we have to implement this policy. In fact, the ACT Party have been very vocal in the fact that they want this work done quickly as well. I’ve explained to them and everybody else that detailed policy work will take place next year, because this year we had to get on top of the huge number of migrant exploitation cases that the Government left us, thank you very much.