Oral Questions

Point of order. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to an oral question.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to none.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: On 28 August, I was asked by the member Teanau Tuiono what I believe the implications of a recent Court of Appeal decision involving Uber drivers would be. I responded that it was my understanding that one party has filed for an application of appeal and this would therefore be out of scope for Parliament to discuss. I have since discovered that although the party had publicly announced that it intended to file an appeal, this action had not been completed by the time my statement was made. Even though my statement was only based on my understanding rather than an assertion of fact, I am issuing a correction to clear things up. Regardless of these particulars, I consider that my overall approach to addressing the member’s question was in line with the Cabinet Manual—where an appeal period has not expired, matters related to judicial decisions are still considered to be before the court. It would have therefore been inappropriate for me to comment on the implications of the results of this particular case, especially given one party had publicly announced an intention to appeal.

I sometimes forget to give the House officers the instructions that I’ve said I would. One was that that microphone that you have by your desk could be moved more closely to you so that others can hear you. Obviously some over here can hear you quite clearly but others, clearly, could not, so I hope that will be picked up by whoever is listening.

Question No. 1—Finance

1. to the Minister of Finance: What is the Government’s revenue strategy?

on behalf of the Minister of Finance: The Government’s revenue strategy is part of the Fiscal Strategy Report. It sets out the Government’s view that a good tax system finances public expenditure in a fair and efficient way, minimises bias in economic decisions, limits the number of tax provisions that provide preferential treatment for certain activities or sectors, rewards effort and individuals’ investment in their own skills, has low compliance and administration costs, and minimises opportunities for tax evasion and avoidance.

Tim van de Molen: Does the revenue strategy consider the introduction of any major new taxes?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, no. The revenue strategy explicitly says that with the prudent control of spending, the Government does not see the need to seek major additional sources of revenue. Government spending and revenue are clearly out of balance. That is because of big spending increases with core Crown expenses up 72 percent in the last six years. The Government’s focus is squarely on controlling spending, restoring fiscal discipline, and improving efficiency and productivity. It would be a very lazy Government indeed that leapt to increasing tax as a response to a blowout in spending.

Tim van de Molen: Does that mean the Government is not considering a wealth tax?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, no, the Government is not contemplating a wealth tax. Almost no other countries have such a tax, for good reason. The main result would be wealthy people leaving New Zealand in droves, taking their money with them, and paying no tax here at all. To be fair, there are some local commentators who argue publicly for a wealth tax, and there are commentators who publicly argue against it. It’s interesting to see these disagreements playing out in public, particularly from such close colleagues.

SPEAKER: I just want to say that I think the affirmations coming from the Government’s side are no better than the interjections coming from the other side, and they need to stop. I was hoping we might get through this week—given the great day that we had yesterday—where I might not cop the blame for your bad behaviour. So could we just please have your next supplementary, Mr van de Molen.

Tim van de Molen: Is the Government considering a comprehensive capital gains tax?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, no, we are not considering a comprehensive capital gains tax. Our focus is on controlling spending, not finding new and more ways to get tax out of people. We are not going to be a Government that goes to small-business owners and tells them the Government is going to tax them more when they sell their business and retire. We are not going to be a Government that tells people with savings, including in KiwiSaver, that the Government is going to tax their savings more heavily, and who tells people that they should not invest in productive assets because we’ll tax you more. For a country that is short of capital, a capital gains tax is the last thing we need.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: So, in summation, the Government’s position is Hipkins pre-election, not Hipkins post-election?

SPEAKER: No, no, stop. That’s not a free question. You can have an extra one for that, which I don’t often do, as you know.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Just wait for the House to compose itself.

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

Yes, especially our decision to deliver more funding for cancer drugs and other medicines, which will have a massive impact in the lives of thousands of New Zealanders. On Monday, Pharmac announced that from 1 October, Keytruda will be funded for eligible people with advanced triple-negative breast cancer, head and neck cancer, advanced bladder cancer, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and as a first-line and second-line treatment for bowel cancer. That funding comes alongside a massive record investment of $16.7 billion in this year’s Budget for health. The last Government left a train wreck for Health New Zealand after their failed mergers, and this Government’s cleaning it up, and Shane Reti’s doing the job.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has Cabinet agreed to draft a law change that will delegate the power to increase public access to semi-automatic weapons to Nicole McKee; if so, why?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the Government has a number of works in the firearms space which we’re working our way through, trying to work out how we balance public safety and also efficiency of compliance.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet has agreed to draft a law change delegating power to increase public access to semi-automatic weapons to Nicole McKee and, if they had done that, why they had done that. Simply saying that they’re trying to increase or balance public safety doesn’t really address that question.

SPEAKER: Well, it sort of does, doesn’t it? Because otherwise he’d be telling you what Cabinet business is, which is not the usual course of action.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of Order, Mr Speaker. Once the Cabinet has released the papers, then it is perfectly acceptable for people to talk about it, and the Prime Minister should clearly know about it given that he chairs the meeting.

SPEAKER: I was unaware that the papers had been released. I should have known because that’s how you’d have found out. The Prime Minister might want to say something more in direct answer.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I’m happy to repeat it for the Prime Minister.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, please.

SPEAKER: We’ve got a long afternoon ahead of us.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has Cabinet agreed to draft a law change that will delegate the power to increase public access to semi-automatic weapons to Nicole McKee; if so, why?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, the member’s getting well ahead of himself. We have a piece of work under way. There have been no decisions made whatsoever about semi-automatic rifles. There’s been a minor change made to clubs about technical reporting; that is a technical matter and entirely appropriate.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did Cabinet agree to amend section 74A of the Arms Act to delegate to Nicole McKee the power to determine what a “prohibited weapon” is?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The Minister has responsibility for firearms legislation, and Cabinet obviously supports the Minister.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will the delegation to Nicole McKee under section 74A of the Arms Act allow her to increase access to semi-automatic weapons?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Cabinet has not had the discussion about access to semi-automatic weapons. When it does, it’ll come back and be discussed fully.

Hon David Seymour: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports of the Labour Party police spokesperson getting her facts woefully wrong and being publicly humiliated for it, as may be happening right now?

SPEAKER: No—no. No need to answer that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If Cabinet has not had any discussions on semi-automatic weapons, why has it agreed to change the law to delegate the power to liberalise access to semi-automatic weapons to Nicole McKee?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: 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.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did the Government notify its Korean counterpart that it was cancelling the contract for new ferries by text message less than an hour before announcing the cancellation, despite receiving advice that, “Careful and deliberate communications with the Korean government would be required in advance of any public announcement,”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That’s a commercial matter between two commercial parties to resolve: KiwiRail and Hyundai.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did the Prime Minister not read the advice from Government officials that suggested that cancellation of the contract would need to be handled carefully in terms of the New Zealand Government’s relation with its Korean counterpart?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I was in Korea last week. The issue didn’t come up. I can tell you, in a $2.7 trillion economy like Korea, it’s not a big issue. Two parties are quite capable of resolving that commercial arrangement.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Perhaps, then, did the Prime Minister raise the issue himself to apologise to the Korean Government or was he more interested in discussing K-pop?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely not. There was no need to raise it with the Korean Government, because you have one company in Korea and one company in New Zealand—two companies can resolve a commercial dispute. It’s very simple.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Winston Peters and Judith Collins that Shane Jones’ comments referring to a judge as a communist should not have been said and were inconsistent with Cabinet Manual requirements, or does he agree with the Prime Minister, who said the comment was “descriptive” and was consistent with Cabinet Manual guidance?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the member is actually conflating two issues there, but the Attorney-General—it is entirely reasonable for her to remind all Ministers about the importance of comity.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: She’s got higher standards than you. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Question—excuse me.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: He mentioned you.

SPEAKER: Yes, I know. But I’m not so sensitive to think that he meant it.

Question No. 3—Infrastructure

3. to the Minister for Infrastructure: What recent announcements has he made on actions to improve New Zealand’s infrastructure system?

At the Building Nations summit a couple of weeks ago, I announced two actions that the Government is taking to improve our system: establishing a new national infrastructure agency on 1 December and directing the Infrastructure Commission to develop an independent 30-year national infrastructure plan by the end of next year. In relation to the new infrastructure agency, this is repurposing Crown Infrastructure Partners so it will act as the Crown’s shop front for the private sector, partnering with agencies and, in some cases, local government on projects involving private finance, and administer central government infrastructure funds.

Katie Nimon: How will the new infrastructure agency improve the supply and quality of infrastructure?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The new agency will unlock access to capital for infrastructure and be a gateway for the private sector partners that have big and credible ideas for New Zealand. It will also lift the commercial capability inside the Government and help us to be a better client around infrastructure. This will also work on projects involving traditional loans, equity investments, public-private partnerships, developer levies, beneficiary levies, tolling, and value capture. We’ve set out an ambitious plan on this side of the House to use new tools to fund and finance our future infrastructure needs, and the new agency will be a part of delivering those tools.

Katie Nimon: How will the national infrastructure plan improve long-term infrastructure outcomes?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We’re developing a 30-year national infrastructure plan consisting of infrastructure needs analysis, a strengthened infrastructure pipeline, and an infrastructure priorities programme, and looking at priority reforms to improve the way we select, invest in, and deliver infrastructure. We are letting the infrastructure experts at the commission, which was set up by the last Government with bipartisan support from the then National Opposition, to do that work. They will be looking at the current state of play, identifying the gap between what we have now and what we need into the future, and looking at independent assessments of credible investments, reforms, and policies to fill our infrastructure deficit.

Katie Nimon: What else will the Government be focusing on to improve infrastructure?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: According to the Infrastructure Commission, one of our biggest challenges facing our system is the cost and resources we need to repair the assets that are wearing out. In fact, there was a recent OECD report out just last month that shows we are ranked fourth to last in the OECD for asset management and, in fact, dead last for accountability and professionalism. Asset management is not something that has been core business for Governments in the last few decades, but it is something that we need to drastically improve. So the Government is considering our next steps for how we improve asset management and maintenance. We’re looking at long-term capital planning. We’re looking at mandatory reporting. We’re looking at tighter rules. We’re looking at upskilling and training, better structures and incentives, minimum standards, and stronger regulatory scrutiny. This all sounds quite boring to some, but it is absolutely vital for driving better value for money out of Crown expenditure.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given the interjections across the House, why doesn’t he take advantage of Shanan Halbert’s, Labour MP’s, extensive business knowledge on this matter?

SPEAKER: That’s not something that can be commented on by the Minister, and it’s the second one today from the Government. It’s not going to go well for the Government—[Interruption] Just a minute—[Interruption] Quiet, thank you. It’s not going to go well for the Government in the long term.

Question No. 4—Customs

4. to the Minister of Customs: What updates does she have about recent drug seizures at the border?

Customs continues to make significant seizures at the border. So far this year, 1.2 tonnes of methamphetamine was intercepted onshore, while 1.7 tonnes was intercepted offshore. Internationally, Customs is working closely with its offshore partners and has been very effective at targeting and intercepting significant quantities of drugs—both very large intercepts, as well as the smaller packages intercepted on a daily basis. Currently, around half of the drug seizures destined for New Zealand are made before they reach our border. In collaboration with New Zealand Police, Customs has had a number of successes in dismantling organised crime groups, arresting key members, and ensuring they will face justice. Preventing drugs from arriving in our community has prevented massive social harm and cost to New Zealand. This Government is committed to being tough on crime and ensuring that our communities are safe and that offenders face consequences for the harm they cause.

Tanya Unkovich: What methods are criminals using to try and evade interception?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Transnational organised crime groups use all manner of concealment methods to try and evade Customs’ border security measures across air, sea, and freight import pathways. While transnational organised crime groups continue to target New Zealand through high-volume attempted imports through mail, we are now seeing more sophisticated deep hides in, for example, industrial machinery, and in and around maritime vessels. Transnational organised crime groups also exploit the legitimate supply chains by using trusted insiders with privileged access to systems in order to circumvent border controls.

SPEAKER: There have been any number of conversations going on while questions are being asked. That’s not acceptable, so we’ll just wait until those conversations finish—and, of course, those involved in those conversations can’t even hear what’s being said.

Tanya Unkovich: Has there been a shift in how criminal groups are attempting to bring drugs into New Zealand?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Transnational organised crime groups are determined in their attempts to infiltrate the import-export supply chain. They actively recruit workers on ports and within airport facilities, known as trusted insiders, to manipulate the movement of goods, circumvent Customs’ controls, and work with external criminal groups to smuggle prohibited drugs into our communities. The emergence of rip methods that involve trusted insider elements at both the originator and the New Zealand port premises placing and removing prohibited goods from containers before they are subject to customs processes is an ongoing challenge to Customs’ border security role, and it highlights the importance of Customs’ overseas postings and partnerships.

Tanya Unkovich: What work is under way in seeking to make it harder for organised crime groups to operate in New Zealand?

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

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: What will it cost to upgrade port facilities for Interislander ferries, and who will pay, given her comment that “It will, of course, cost something to upgrade port facilities”?

on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Ministers are carefully working through advice and options to ensure the Cook Strait connection is resilient. Announcements will be made once decisions have been taken.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she provide any funding for port-side infrastructure and facilities?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, that remains to be seen, but all I can do is repeat the answer to the primary question, which is that the Ministers are carefully working through the advice we’ve received and options around ensuring the Cook Strait connection is resilient. Once we’re in a position to say more about it, that member will be one of the first to know.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her statement that the public will find out about the ferries “within the quarter”, and is she confident she can make an announcement on the new ferries before the end of September?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, on behalf of the Minister, I’m not aware of the full context that that quote was given. What I can assure the House is that Ministers are carefully working through the reports we’ve received and analysing the options that are on the table. Once we’re in a position to say more about it, we’ll do so.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the Rt Hon Winston Peters when he said in 2017 that he “is committed to restoring rail to its rightful place in New Zealand. Bigger, better ships with new technology are yet another step on that journey”; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister, I often find it’s wise to agree with the Rt Hon Winston Peters, particularly when he’s making very sage and cogent comments in relation to infrastructure and particularly rail. This is a Government that is committed to a resilient connection across the Cook Strait, and we are also committed to the rail network, which plays a very important role, particularly in Auckland and Wellington through metropolitan public transport.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he aware that the 2017 comments matured into the 2020 decision by the then Minister in charge of railways to buy two ferries for $400 million max—right?—and not end up with $3.2 billion that we ended up with under that Government?

SPEAKER: Well, in so much as the acting Minister would be aware of that, he can answer.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, yes, I am aware that the original decision back in 2020—it ended up in 2023 with a projected cost of both the new ferries but also the associated port-side infrastructure cost approaching $3 billion. The new Government did not consider that to be a prudent use of taxpayer money.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How much does she expect to have to promise New Zealand First to confirm their support for non - rail-enabled ferries?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, I don’t have anything more to add other than what I’ve said in the primary answer, which is that Ministers are working their way through the advice and the options that have been received. When we are in a position to say more, we will do so, and that member will be one of the first to know.

Question No. 6—Transport

6. to the Minister of Transport: How many public transport improvement projects that were bid for by regional and local councils were funded in the National Land Transport Programme 2024-27 and how many did not receive funding?

In total, 42 public transport (PT) improvement projects are included in the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP) 2024-2027, and 87 public transport projects were not included. The number of public transport improvement projects covers projects across both the public transport services and infrastructure activity classes. The National Land Transport Programme delivers a record amount of investment across public transport services and infrastructure: $6.4 billion has been allocated, which is a $1.5 billion increase over the previous National Land Transport Programme. Public transport projects progressing in their 2024-27 NLTP include—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just stop there. Wait for some reasonable listening time.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I’ll try.

SPEAKER: Resume.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: PT projects progressing in the 2024-27 NLTP, among others, include the Rosedale bus station, City Rail Link activities that enable day-one operation of the new rail link, delivering new electric ferries, the Eastern Busway, Palmerston North bus service improvements, Christchurch bus service improvements—

SPEAKER: Good, just table it.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —on route 7, Wellington Metro rail track—

SPEAKER: That’s enough. Thank you. It’s enough.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Oh, thank you. There’s lots more.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: How many, if any, of those public transport projects that the Minister mentioned—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: I might get you to—sorry, just ask that question again. The House will be silent while people are asking questions. Little conversations will stop.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: How many of the public transport projects that he just referred to which are funded under the new NLTP are new projects and not just a continuation of projects that had already been funded under the previous NLTP?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, if that member wants to talk about announcements versus delivery, let me introduce her to Auckland light rail.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I’m sorry, I don’t have the exact Speakers’ ruling before me, but I believe there is one that says that an answer to a question should not start with a political attack, especially since it was a very straight question—that was, just how many of those projects are new projects.

SPEAKER: Well, he got about four words out that I could hear before you rose to your feet. I’d suggest that the Minister answers the question as directly as possible.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, a number of these projects are continuing. A number of the projects such as enabling day-one operation of the City Rail Link is critically important to ensure that when it opens in 2026, it’s able to be successful. There’s new funding in there for the new services which are going to need to be enabled. So there is funding for new services, there’s funding for existing programmes, but, ultimately, it’s about delivery. And if the last Government needs to learn—the last Government—

SPEAKER: No, no. [Interruption] That’s enough, thank you. It’s enough.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that funding applied for by Auckland for level-crossings removal to enable the City Rail Link to function at the highest possible standard have not received funding under this NLTP?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: There is funding in the NLTP for parts of the level-crossing removal programme.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: What does he say to the people of the Hutt City who, amongst 18 cancelled, unfunded public transport improvement projects, will not see planned improvements to train stations and bus interchanges at Waterloo and Woburn, no progress on the regional busways work, or the possibility of double-decker buses on key routes over the next three years, and who may now see reductions in ferry, bus, and rail services?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I say to that member that there is $100 million more being spent on public transport services and infrastructure in the Wellington region under this National Land Transport Programme than under the last Government’s National Land Transport Programme. Now, when it comes to this Government, we’re actually focused on delivery, and that member forgets a thing called “Let’s Get Wellington Moving”, which actually spent more time on “Let’s get Wellington consulting”.

SPEAKER: Good, thank you.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that, once accounting for inflation, the amount of funding in this NLTP for public transport infrastructure is less than the previous NLTP and that, as a share of the overall NLTP, public transport has reduced, compared to the last one, to 8 percent?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, this is where the Opposition get confused between how much is being spent and actually what’s been delivered. Actually, if you look at how much—let me just give some facts to the member. At the last National Land Transport Programme, the Wellington region was allocated $744 million for public transport infrastructure; they only spent $421 million of that. They have a problem when it comes to delivery, and so this Government is focused on actually getting things done, not just announcing amounts of money being spent.

Scott Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I was hoping to hear an answer to a very direct question. All I heard was an attack. I would ask the Speaker to reflect on that and see if there can be a response to a very direct question.

SPEAKER: No, Speakers’ rulings make it very clear that the Government can refer to past Government programmes. I think the Minister, in his answer, was simply saying that if you look at money allocated compared to money spent, there is a delivery problem, and I don’t think that’s unreasonable.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he believe that Kiwis are sick and tired of improvements to public transport, and is that why he has, effectively, cut funding for new public transport improvement projects? It, basically, killed the pipeline, so there will be no improvements to new public transport infrastructure that will enable services to improve over the next three years other than what was—

SPEAKER: I’ll ask the member to phrase that as a question, not a statement. Please, have another go at it first.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I’m happy to address that.

SPEAKER: You may well be, but I’m not happy with the question.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he believe that Kiwis are sick and tired of improvements to public transport, and that is why he has reduced the funding available and, effectively, killed the pipeline for improvements to public transport and Kiwis are going to see the difference?

SPEAKER: Yeah, not a lot better. Just answer so we can move.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I completely reject the premise of that question. In fact, under this National Land Transport Programme, in Auckland, the City Rail Link is going to be completed. That is going to double the capacity of the Auckland commuter rail network. That is a project started under the last National Government, and it’s going to be delivered under this coalition Government. This Government delivers; the last Government just did business cases.

SPEAKER: That’s enough. Don’t ruin it. Question No. 7—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: He gets too excited.

SPEAKER: —in the name of the Hon Willie Jackson. Don’t talk to me about who gets excited in this House. The Hon Willie Jackson—we’re all listening in silence.

Question No. 7—Justice

7. to the Associate Minister of Justice: Does he agree with all of the Government’s statements and actions in respect of the Treaty principles bill, and, if so, why?

I was tempted to answer the way that that member did when asked a similar question once. He said, “Yeah, at the time.” But this Government is united in its purpose. You might even say it has kotahitanga. So, yes, I do agree with its statements. For instance, I agree with Cabinet’s decision to progress the Treaty principles bill, a bill that would enshrine in law the principle that everyone is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. Everyone is entitled to the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights without discrimination. Oh yes, I agree with that.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does he agree with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, who says, “we’ve never been open-minded. We’ve always said there’s no intention, no commitment, no support for it beyond first reading”, and, if not, why not?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, for the simple reason that the Government has no policy on a second reading—it may well be that that’s the position of the National Party, and I respect that because, in our coalition, we work together professionally. We have areas where we disagree as parties. That’s why we’re in different parties.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does the Minister agree with the Hon Shane Jones, who said, “There is no ambiguity, no doubt,” that the Treaty principles bill would not be passed into law, and, if not, why has he decided to continue with it?

Hon Shane Jones: Source—source?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, first of all, I hear the Hon Shane Jones challenging the member for a source. But I repeat that the Government doesn’t have a position on that. Political parties and their leaders may do, but the Government does not.

Hon Willie Jackson: Will the Minister stop wasting everyone’s time and resources and kill the bill now, given that no one in the coalition Government supports him, the religious fraternity doesn’t support him, the political experts don’t support him, and Māori certainly don’t support it, and, if not, why not?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, Mr Speaker, could I have permission for a longer answer? There’s a lot to address there. First of all—

SPEAKER: No, no. Permission is not granted. If I ask you to be as brief as you normally are, it’ll be a long answer, anyway.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: He mentioned the religious fraternity, and I hear God loves a trier. Starting with one group of people, Labour supporters, when asked, do support the principles in the bill—62 percent of them. So there’s one group. He said Māori don’t support them. Since when did Willie Jackson get to say what every single Māori person thinks? In fact, usually, when you stereotype a group of people by race and say they all think the same, that’s actually racism. We oppose that kind of thinking. Why are we advancing this bill? Because I believe that this country deserves to be able to have a say about its constitutional future and doesn’t need to be cut down or told they’re not allowed an opinion.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Why is the Treaty principles bill needed?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: For the very simple reason that this Parliament, in 1975, when almost no current members were here, introduced the Treaty of Waitangi Act, which said that the Treaty has principles. For 50 years, this Parliament has been silent on what those principles are, and into that void has emerged, according to the Court of Appeal, “a partnership between races,”. I simply believe that there is no credible constitutional basis or successful model where people have different rights, based on their background and their ancestry, because they’re in a partnership between races.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does the Minister stand by his statement, “Well, I think the debate will be fun.”, and does he think it will be fun to see racially charged rhetoric and possible civil unrest, and, if so, is that party supporter Matthew Hooton correct that the true motive for the Treaty principles bill is “to inflame hatred in New Zealand”?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: It’s a funny and desperate day when the Labour Party is quoting Matthew Hooton. Willie Jackson says he’s my supporter. Willie Jackson should be very careful, because if I was Willie Jackson, I wouldn’t want politicians to have to be responsible for all of their supporters. Actually, I think the debate can be fun, I think it can be civil, and I think he underestimates New Zealanders’ ability to have a civilised and constructive discussion about their future. But if there’s anything that’s been divisive, if there’s anything that has led to racial tension, it is the previous Government’s belief that each of us exists in a partnership between races—

SPEAKER: Yep, that’s enough. That’s enough. Thank you.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What’s wrong with the current interpretation of the Treaty as a partnership, and how would the Treaty principles bill change this interpretation?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, the term “partnership” does not appear in the Treaty and does not align with either version of the original text. It’s a relatively recent invention of the courts in response to this House saying that the Treaty had principles.

Hon Willie Jackson: All those judges are wrong—all those judges are wrong!

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: And there just isn’t a workable model. And this is the challenge for people like Willie Jackson heckling away: where is the successful model of a society which divides people by their ancestry with a different constitutional race to play based on the history of their family? There isn’t one, but there are so many examples of States that have failed because of that exact thinking, and so many examples of good people that Willie Jackson should join who have campaigned for universal human rights.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What support has he seen for the Treaty principles bill?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, widespread support. In fact, I’ll hold it up again: 62 percent of Labour supporters, according to one poll that I’ve seen. And it’s a warning to those in the Labour Party that as they grapple for an identity in the wake of their crippling loss of 2023, they must really think—

SPEAKER: No, that’s far enough, thank you.

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

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

Yes, especially this Government’s action to reduce the number of families in emergency housing. Our Government inherited a rather shameful track record on emergency housing, and now we’re going about fixing it. I’m pleased to report that as of 31 July, there were just 1,548 households living in emergency housing, down from 3,000 when the Government took office at the end of last year. Our policies, like Priority One, which shifts families out of emergency housing and into sustainable social housing, are working. And I want to thank Ministers Tama Potaka and Chris Bishop. No child should have to grow up in an emergency motel, and under our Government, fewer children are. In the month of July, we shifted 525 children out of emergency housing, and that’s more than 10 children a day. There’s more to do, but we want to be able to give families the opportunity to get out of emergency housing, and so far we’re seeing some good results.

I just want to say to this side of the House: calm it down. If you want to ask those questions or make those statements, do it by way of questions.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by his statement that Hawke’s Bay health professionals were “out of line” for offering young Māori and Pasifika people aged 14 to 24 free GP and nurse services?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes; we believe that health should be offered on the basis of needs.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will he commit to offering all New Zealanders aged 14 to 24 free GP and nurse services?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That hasn’t been part of our policy. What we’ve been working on is making sure we improve immunisation rates for young Māori under the age of two and working with iwi health organisations to do so, and we’re getting some fantastic results doing it.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by his statement that reporters need to “look at the facts”; and, if so, does he accept the fact that 22 percent of Māori are unable to see a GP when in need, compared to 13 percent of non-Māori?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I accept that we have major challenges in our healthcare system, thanks to a botched merger from the previous administration. Our Government’s working really hard to get the workforce in place and get the targets in place. We’ve spent a record amount of money—$16.7 billion in place—and we’ve appointed a commissioner because we know how to run things on this side of Government. We know how to run things and how to organise things, and that needs to be a much better performing organisation.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is his plan to ensure more Māori and Pasifika are able to access healthcare?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, a good example would be what we committed to before Christmas, where we committed to spending $50 million to raise immunisation rates amongst young Māori under the age of two. We partnered with iwi-led organisations and as a result we set a target of 10,000 immunisations—I think, as of last week or so, we’re up to about 33,000, so it’s been a tremendous success. We believe very strongly in this Government about localism and devolution and about partnering with community organisations to get things done. What we don’t believe in is centralisation and control—that Government has to do it all. We believe in partnership and working with iwi organisations, communities, and businesses to get things done. [Interruption]

Just a moment. We’re going to hear the next question and answer in silence.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is he doing to—

SPEAKER: No, no—Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is he doing to ensure that his Government’s decision to allow the Treaty principles bill to live for six months beyond first reading will not increase racial division in Aotearoa?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’re working incredibly hard to improve outcomes for Māori and non-Māori. That’s what our Government’s focused on. We’re rebuilding the economy, we’re lowering crime so that Māori who are disproportionately victims of crime are not impacted as much, and we’re making sure we’re improving health and educational outcomes as well.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. The question was specifically directed towards the Treaty principles bill.

No, the question was directed towards what actions would be taken by the Government, and you’ve got an answer that referred to actions.

Question No. 9—Justice

9. to the Associate Minister of Justice: Does she agree with the Ministry of Justice’s advice that her proposal to change the regulations on gun clubs and shooting ranges “increases safety risks to range users and members of the public”; if not, why not?

The quote that the member refers to is from a briefing that I received in March this year from the Ministry of Justice about phase 2 of the Government’s firearms reform. The member assumes that I have blindly chosen this option exactly as it was presented to me. I have not. Since then, I have received further advice. I have consulted on these proposals as well. This specific policy proposal was amended and is not included in the final bill that I intend to take to Cabinet.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why did she exclude information, from the phase 2 firearms reform Cabinet paper, that hundreds of improvement notices had been issued by police to pistol ranges for not meeting pre-2020 safety standards, given this would have assisted Cabinet to make an informed decision about potential safety risks?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: The clubs and ranges regulations introduced by the previous Labour Government have placed unnecessary burden on firearms clubs and ranges for no tangible safety benefit. What we have ensured is that the consultation that was done under the previous 2022 consultation with New Zealand Police actually referred to some of the changes that we have made under the Order in Council. It is really important to note that, while we have made these changes, it is to enable the clubs and ranges to continue to operate and to be the eyes and ears of New Zealand gun users. This is very important because, without them, we will be in a more serious public safety risk, and that, ultimately, is what this Government is trying to avoid.

Hon Ginny Andersen: When Cabinet agreed, as per Cabinet minute 0173, to amend section 74A of the Arms Act, was the Minister of Police and the Prime Minister made aware that this would give her the power to define what is a prohibited firearm?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Again, I would have thought that perhaps the member, having been a previous Minister, would understand how this works, but obviously she doesn’t. The amendments that have been made in regard to section 74(4) are that all powers to make regulations actually still lie with the Minister of Police. They do not lie with me. This means that the Minister of Police, in consultation with me and then with agreement by Cabinet, comes to the decisions that we make. While it is still under the Minister of Police, he is the one that ultimately confers with Police and makes the decisions, in consultation with me. I do not have that power.

SPEAKER: The question is an important one. The issue is an important one. And the Minister will answer without any personal reflections of any type, and that would go for all other Ministers as well.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why was the Prime Minister not aware that changing the responsible Minister under section 74A would give her the power to determine what is a prohibited firearm?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I just answered that question by telling the member that I do not have that authority, nor do I have that power. It still lies with the Minister of Police. And, while I don’t want to make any personal inferences, I think that perhaps maybe the member should listen to the previous answer.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order. I have available—and it is publicly available—Cabinet minute 0173 that specifies that Cabinet has given a change and instructed legislation to be drafted for Nicole McKee to have the power under section 74A of the Arms Act to be the responsible Minister to define what is a prohibited firearm in New Zealand.

SPEAKER: That may be true, but until it is in law, it is just a draft. The Minister’s answer is not incorrect.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Did she mislead Cabinet by not informing them that changing the responsible Minister for section 74A would give her the power to determine what is a prohibited firearm?

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Sir, can you give us some clarification? That surely is outside the bounds of Standing Order 390, making that type of accusation.

SPEAKER: Well, to be honest with you I didn’t hear it entirely, but I’d ask the member to make sure that the questions are within the Standing Orders.

Hon Member: I think it is.

Hon Member: It is. It’s fine.

SPEAKER: Well, that might be the case, but if I hear it again and it’s not, then it will be the end of the question.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Did she mislead Cabinet by not informing them that changing the responsible Minister for section 74A, as Cabinet minute 0173 specifies, would give her the power to determine what is a prohibited firearm?

SPEAKER: No, I don’t think that’s a reasonable question at all. You can’t start off by accusing someone of misleading the question, so I’ll move now to question number—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. There was no assertion in that question.

SPEAKER: Yes, there was.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: If the Minister—

SPEAKER: The question was—sorry, I’m not going to go further with this. It was twice: why did the Minister mislead?

Hon Members: Did she?

SPEAKER: Well, what did she say?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. She asked if the Minister did, and if the Minister didn’t, it’s very simply cleared up by saying no. She didn’t say why; she didn’t say when. She asked “did”—“did the Minister mislead?”

SPEAKER: No, I think there was also quite a clear inference in the question, and that is the problem with the question. I’ll give the member one more chance to ask the question inside the Standing Orders.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is she confident that Cabinet was fully aware that changing the responsible Minister for section 74A, as per Cabinet minute 0173, would give her the power to determine what is a prohibited firearm?

SPEAKER: One hundred percent; your mark’s right on top of mine.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: When making an Order in Council, we were specific about what it was that we were changing. When you have a look at section 74, there is actually a large number of references that a person may be entitled to change. We did not go through every single one of them. What we did go through is what the task at hand was, in the Order in Council that we were going to be changing, and that is what we will be presenting in a bill very shortly.

Question No. 10—Transport

10. to the Minister of Transport: How is the Government Policy Statement on land transport delivering for New Zealanders?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. In June, I released the Government Policy Statement on land transport to deliver our commitments to get transport back on track. Last week, our Government welcomed the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP), which gives effect to our Government policy statement and delivers a record $32.9 billion of investment in transport to get Kiwis where they want to go quickly and safely. The National Land Transport Programme brings back the successful roads of national significance programme started under the last National Government, boosts investment in road maintenance across the country, and delivers reliable public transport options in our main centres.

David MacLeod: What does the National Land Transport Programme mean for motorists and freight operators trying to get around our country quickly and safely?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The National Land Transport Programme prioritises investment in building and maintaining our roading network to boost economic growth and productivity. After years of non-delivery and the abrupt cancellation of the roads of national significance programme, our Government is bringing back the roads of national significance, with 17 projects across the country, to get Kiwis and freight to where they need to go quickly and safely. Takitimu North Link Stage 1 is already under way, Ōtaki to north of Levin will begin construction next year, and an additional seven roads of national significance will begin procurement, enabling works and construction in the next three years. This Government is getting roading and transport back on track.

David MacLeod: What investment is being made on road maintenance?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Whenever I travel around the country, I’m constantly hearing complaints from motorists about the record number of potholes that have been peppering our roads. That’s why this National Land Transport Programme delivers a record $5.5 billion for resealing, rehabilitating, and drainage maintenance works on our State highways and local roads over the next three years. On our State highways alone, there’s a 91 percent increase in funding for pothole prevention to deliver thousands of kilometres of road sealing, rehabilitation, and drainage renewals to prevent potholes from forming in the first place. Our Government has long-term targets in place and is also working with the Road Efficiency Group to ensure this money is achieving value for roads on our State highways and our local roading networks across the country.

David MacLeod: What does the National Land Transport Programme mean for public transport commuters?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, this National Land Transport Programme makes the largest investment in public transport services and operations ever to increase reliabilities for commuters, with a 41 percent increase in public transport (PT) services over the next three years. The National Land Transport Programme is focused on reliability of PT services to ensure that we can increase patronage in our main centres. There’s also good news for commuters: the City Rail Link will soon be complete, and other major public transport projects are being progressed through this NLTP, including the Eastern Busway, Airport to Botany busway, Northwest Rapid Transit corridor, and upgrades to commuter rails in the Manawatū and Wairarapa.

Question No. 11—Transport

11. to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all his statements and actions in relation to the recent announcement of the National Land Transport Programme?

Yes. We’re committed to providing New Zealanders with quality investments and value for money, and that is what the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP) delivers. The NLTP is a record investment in transport projects that will reduce travel times, improve public transport options, and build and maintain our roading network to the safe and reliable standard Kiwis expect. For example—

SPEAKER: No. No need, sorry. You said yes at the start, and that was probably enough.

Tangi Utikere: Does he agree with the National MP Simeon Brown who said, “The whole purpose of how we fund roading is meant to be user pays. People who benefit, people who use the roads contribute towards building it and maintaining it.”; if so, does he stand by the funding announced in the NLTP, which includes more than $7 billion in Crown loans, grants, and contingencies?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes, I do stand by that statement. Ultimately, the people who use our transport networks pay for it, whether through road-user charges, petrol taxes, and also contributions which are paid for by taxpayers.

Tangi Utikere: Why is he prepared to allow funding that would be used to build new schools and hospitals to be used to pay for the items in his roading plan, such as the roads of National Party significance?

SPEAKER: No, no. The member will ask that question again.

Tangi Utikere: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why is he prepared to allow funding that would be used to build new schools and hospitals to be used to pay for the items in his roading plan, such as the roads of national significance?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I’m not sure if that member remembers, but the last Government had a programme called the New Zealand Upgrade Programme, which allocated capital to building a range of transport projects. So if that member wants to lecture this Government for investing in the critical infrastructure, maybe he should answer that question. But, ultimately, this Government has issued the National Land Transport Programme, which allocates $32.9 billion over the next three years to ensure that we can invest in the transport network, which is critical to our economic growth and productivity as a country. And to do that, we need to deliver—

SPEAKER: That’s good.

Tangi Utikere: Is his Government only proposing a toll on the Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua highway, a road already budgeted and paid for by the previous Government, because his roading plan simply doesn’t add up?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: That proposal has been put forward by the New Zealand Transport Agency. It’s out for consultation. Ultimately, that roading project is a major upgrade and will have a significant benefit, particularly for freight operators, who will have an incredibly efficient and modern reliable piece of infrastructure. And, ultimately, we’ve been very clear as a Government that tolling is one way to help contribute towards the building, construction, and maintenance of our roading network so that we can continue to invest in that critical infrastructure.

Question No. 12—Corrections

Tēnā koe e te Māngai. My question is to the Minister of Corrections. What consultation, if any, did he undertake with Māori before the Government decided the Treaty provisions should be removed from the Corrections Amendment Bill—

Just stop there. Start asking your question again as soon as the House is silent and everyone is listening. Away you go.

12. to the Minister of Corrections: What consultation, if any, did he undertake with Māori before the Government decided the Treaty provisions should be removed from the Corrections Amendment Bill, and is he concerned that this decision will increase the overrepresentation of Māori within our prisons?

on behalf of the Minister of Corrections: In respect of the question pertaining to consultation, that took place during the election in 2023.

Tamatha Paul: Does he agree that people in prison having access to their culture and identity is an important step towards successful rehabilitation and reintegration?

Hon SHANE JONES: There are programmes in our prison system, not the least of which is Hōkai Rangi, but if many of the prisoners practised their culture, they wouldn’t be there in the first place.

Tamatha Paul: If there are no Treaty provisions within the Corrections Act and no active strategy to reduce the overrepresentation of Māori in prisons and given Hōkai Rangi expires this year, how will Corrections be held accountable for reducing the overrepresentation of Māori in prison and meeting their obligations under Te Tiriti?

Hon SHANE JONES: Firstly, there are no obligations in terms of the prison system under Te Tiriti o Waitangi—which is best described as the Treaty of Waitangi, an indivisible document not to be dismembered. In respect of initiatives to deal with the disproportionate number of Māori, it’s about time this House thought about the disproportion of Māori victims.

Tamatha Paul: Is he concerned that despite making up just 17 percent of the general population, Māori make up half of the male prison population, two-thirds of the female prison population, and 67 percent of those in youth justice facilities, and how does he think this overrepresentation has happened?

Hon SHANE JONES: Yes, I am aware of the disproportionate statistics. Māori are twice as likely to be victims of violent crime. Māori are 60 percent likely to be the victims of a higher nature than ordinary New Zealanders. Stop lecturing about people in jail and start thinking about the victims of their crime, who are substantially Māori.

Tamatha Paul: Will he commit to a refreshed and renewed Hōkai Rangi strategy, given it expires this year, to address the overrepresentation of Māori in our jails, in our prisons, and throughout corrections?

Hon SHANE JONES: As I said, a sum of $80 million was set aside in the recent Budget. But I want to make the point: Māori are not in jail because of colonisation. Māori are in jail because of self-responsibility and the need for whānau to refresh and remake themselves so that the values that Kiwis take for granted underlying our society are not trashed and are not explained away by some distant colonial event.