Oral Questions

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

Yes, in the context in which those statements were made.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will he commit to abandoning New Zealand First’s ongoing policy to repeal or remove references to the Treaty from legislation, just as he has committed to voting against the ACT Party’s Treaty principles bill, which is essentially the same thing?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: My response to that is they are not essentially the same thing. We rely upon the expertise of a famous man called Ngata and, before him, a man who became the Deputy Prime Minister for many months called Carroll, very famous for being the first Māori to win a general seat as well, so much he was admired in this country. The second matter—

Hon Willie Jackson: Ugh!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, you can yawn, Willie, because you don’t understand, but your mother used to. She was much brighter. She was much more intelligent. But, on the second matter, we have not resiled from the Treaty of Waitangi where it applies, but we’re not going to have—as we’ve seen since 1987 when five judges couldn’t work out what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi were—that being decided by woke media or, dare I say it, woke academia and by younger Māori who don’t know what happened yesterday at all.

SPEAKER: This is a pretty serious matter. So some of the general groaning and other such goings-on from the other side of the House are not particularly edifying for public consumption. Can we have Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Kia ora. Does he agree with the statement made by his deputy principal—sorry, Deputy Prime Minister—on 20 August 2024 that “There are no principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—it’s a three clause document.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that those who have apprised themselves of the thesis upon which that is based, 102 years ago, understand precisely that matter—as do leading jurists like Judd, who is very, very clear on that matter—and will prevail in the end because it’s based on the facts, not fiction.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he believe that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is made up of principles or articles that assert Māori rights?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Most definitely the Treaty of Waitangi is based on articles which set out Māori rights to be preserved and looked after, and they’re as clear as daylight, as explained by the famous lawyer become politician, joined by famous doctors becoming politicians, Pōmare and Buck, when he set those articles out and explained them with precision, followed by Ngāti Porou and all Māori around this country, including Ngāpuhi, who are a very difficult group of people to try and get alongside any great academic debate. But even Ngāpuhi, the biggest iwi in the country, believe that as well, only to have it redefined by lesser minds in this Parliament.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he then accept that the current Treaty principles are a watering down of the rights guaranteed to Māori in the articles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to allow Crown to avoid honouring the Tiriti o Waitangi itself?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, the member in her question discloses her innocence, so to speak, or unlearnedness on this matter. How can there be a set of principles when they were never defined in the articles and never defined by the expert Māori—at the time, the Māori chiefs who they now gainsay and say, “They didn’t know what they were signing up to.” That is not the truth of the matter. The reality is where the Treaty applies, it’ll be honoured. Where it does not—where it is a fiction made up of modern jurisprudential activism—it will not be honoured.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he agree with the international law principle that states, “Where two documents conflict, the indigenous-language text takes precedence.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That would sound like a brilliant argument until you realise that if you’re talking conceptually about ideas and thoughts, then how the language is framed is critical. Much that was being said back in 1840, where the English language was concerned, was never in the Māori mind, either there or in the Pasifika, in terms of its comprehension or understanding. But it was explained at the time, and what that member is actually saying is, having it been explained to the chiefs, they knew far less than she, all these years later, understands.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: On what grounds does he believe that Māori ceded sovereignty to the Crown?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As the learned Apirana Ngata set out—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Here we go!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —it’s in article 1—yeah, there I go, Chlöe, because he knows something and you know nothing about this issue. Your audacity knows no bounds. Here’s this person who ran for the mayoralty when she was a teenager, virtually. Thinks she could run the Auckland city as a teenager; now is laughing at Ngata. Well, you’re not laughing at him while we’re here.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order—point of order.

SPEAKER: Point of order—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: When you’re called. Ricardo Menéndez March.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Thank you. We’ve just heard you commenting on the groans from the Opposition in relationship to the answers from the Acting Prime Minister and how they were not edifying of this place. I would ask you to reflect as to whether the style of answers that the Acting Prime Minister is giving are edifying whatsoever of the conduct that we should expect here in Parliament.

SPEAKER: I will reflect on that. But, before I do so, I’d certainly offer an observation that comments such as the Acting Prime Minister just made come as a result of interjections from the floor—that’s always been something that’s been allowed in Parliament, and it won’t be changing now.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Sorry. Point of order, Mr Speaker. I offered the comment “Here we go!” I don’t think that quite so much opens the door to the personal reflections and attacks from the Deputy Prime Minister just then.

SPEAKER: I think you’d be pretty thin-skinned to say that was a personal attack. The second point I’d say is—[Interruption] That is a view that I’ve expressed in here. Remember that this is a dynamic environment. The second thing is that the statement “Here we go!”—it depends on the inflection in the voice and it could almost mean “I don’t believe you.” So I’m not going to take this any further.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Here we go. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll tell you what, Ms Ngarewa-Packer. Just wait for a few minutes while the House draws a bit of breath and gets itself ready to listen to your question. When you’re ready.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: And here we go. If he cannot determine on what grounds Māori ceded sovereignty to the Crown, what gives the Crown the right to overrule the courts to entrench the confiscation of 95 percent of our coastlines as admitted by his Minister of Justice?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With the greatest respect, that is a total misrepresentation of the facts. But I’d remind that member that some of us were around when a person called Whina Cooper was so moved by the protests that we were raising about land being taken off us—that’s, namely, Ngāti Wai being taken off us by the Crown on the Whangārei County Council—that she said in 1975 at a meeting, “I know what I’ll do. I’m going to have a Māori land march.” When it was over, she said, “We signed the Treaty so that we could become one people.” I’m listening to her, not that member.

Darleen Tana: With all that he’s experienced and shared with rangatira, hapū, and iwi leaders of late, what does he make of the odds that Māori will relinquish any of their mana tuku iho, let alone be coerced into accepting customary marine title of the order of 5 percent?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I make of it that in 2004 and 2005, in consultation, the person you’re talking about is talking to you now with every coastal tribe in this country, including Ngāi Tahu. They agreed with the foreshore and seabed legislation. Every coastal tribe did. That’s what I make of it. Because back then they realised what a fair deal was.

Darleen Tana: Does he think that perhaps Māori should feel thankful since 5 percent is a 250 percent increase on what they’ve been given to settle with anyway?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That’s a rather extraordinary statement from a member when you look at it. Māori have 50 percent of the fishing resource of this country. We’ve made enormous progress because back then people saw that we had to start at a lower level—it was about 20 percent at the start—but now it’s 50 percent. I must thank my colleague on my left, who headed the fishing industry, called Shane Jones. Here we have got people who’ve done the mahi, so to speak, not all talk.

Hon Shane Jones: Can he confirm that the proposal to restore the wording of the 2011 takutai moana legislation was actually the handiwork of the Māori Party kahurangi Tariana Turia and Dr Pita Sharples, in agreement with the then Minister of Treaty settlements, Christopher Finlayson?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Alas, I have to confirm that.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, and in the strict context and with the full comprehension and understanding of how they were said in the first place.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the climate in a “crisis entirely of humanity’s making”, as claimed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations at a meeting in Tonga yesterday, or is that crisis only a result of longstanding weather patterns as implied by Winston Peters to Pacific leaders at the same meeting?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is both are contributory; everyone knows that. For example, the advent of the volcano in Tonga was 10 times stronger in terms of climate change than anyone contemplated and to say that’s of no matter is just to ignore facts. But both statements are correct.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Winston Peters that “carbon dioxide is 0.04 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere and of that 0.04 percent the human effect is 3 percent” or does he agree with the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd (NIWA) that humans are responsible for 33 percent of carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere now?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With the greatest respect, I can’t think of anyone who agrees with NIWA on that matter worldwide.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs travelling to the Pacific and questioning the scientific consensus on climate change enhance or diminish New Zealand’s standing and reputation in the Pacific?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No such thing has happened. In fact, of the 14 countries—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, he just did!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No—do you want the answer or do you want to shout out like an inexperienced leader? Do you want the answer? You going to keep quiet?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I’d like to get one. What are the odds I’m going to get one?

SPEAKER: Yeah, very good. Just carry on with the answer.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Of the 14 countries that I visited in a matter of months, every one of those countries has been grateful for our understanding of the matters of climate change, the financing of climate resilience projects. We launched, for example, one just the other day with respect to radar in Tonga. It followed very hard upon, of course, the most dynamic recovery of the Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunami (DART) buoy tsunami warning of 17 DART buoys, which were let to run down to the last one before an informed individual—you’re looking at him—realised what a disaster this was and all 17 are back in place now. And all those countries, all those 14 countries, have been enormously grateful for two things: for seeing somebody turn up for the first time for a very long, long time, and what we’re doing to help them.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does the Prime Minister believe that it’s OK for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to travel to the Pacific and question the science of climate change in front of leaders who, in some cases, are finding their countries literally sinking into the ocean?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because nothing of the sort is happening. The reality is, when someone is giving an interview and makes a statement it has to be seen in its totality, not just grab one little phrase, a few words, and think “I’ll make a home run of that.” Now, look, if you were in a court of law, you’d never try that because you’re bound to fail every case.

Hon David Seymour: Was just now the first time that the Acting Prime Minister had heard in this House the assertion that, in fact, the sea level is not rising but the Pacific islands are sinking?

SPEAKER: That’s a question that the Minister has no responsibility for, nor any capabilities to scientifically answer.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Prime Minister agree with his Foreign Minister that “the biggest tsunami in recent times was 1968. There’s always climate change.”; if so, does he think that tsunamis are primarily caused by climate change or earthquakes?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With respect, I don’t pretend—no one pretends here to be a scientist on this matter, but one has to listen to the science. And the second thing is it can be caused by a volcano; it can be caused by an earthquake. That’s why we got the DART buoys out there. By the way, could I tell Mr Seymour that, actually, in the Pacific about 25 percent of the islands are actually, in fact, rising, and the scientific outer space imagery proves that categorically. But, of course, they wouldn’t want to know that, would they?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ refusal to acknowledge humanity’s contribution towards climate change a reflection of his Government’s abandonment of New Zealand’s emissions reductions targets?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is nothing of the sort. When we were in the Pacific they were greatly concerned about the fiscal cliff the previous Government left. For example, they set out the forward financing with respect to climate change, but set the ceiling—or the end part—at 2025, not 2026/27/28. It’s as though this issue would be solved by 2025. That’s how naive they were.

Question No. 3—Public Service

3. to the Minister for the Public Service: What recent reports has she seen about public sector pay increases?

Earlier this month, Stats NZ released the labour cost index for the June 2024 quarter. The labour cost index measures pure pay rises and doesn’t include wage increases that reflect a promotion, for example, or reward better performance at work. The June figures showed very different results for the private and public sectors. Over the past year, labour costs in the private sector have risen by 3.6 percent. Over the same period, however, labour costs in the public sector have risen far in excess of this, by 6.9 percent.

Grant McCallum: Is this a change from the usual trend?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What’s wrong with wage growth?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Public and private sector pay increases, for the benefit of Mr Hipkins—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I thought you hated wage growth.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I love wage growth. What I am always conscious of is taxpayers funding public sector wage growth that gets out of step with the private sector. So, if the members would listen, public and private sector pay increases have tended to follow a roughly similar pattern over time. In the last year or so, however, they have diverged markedly. Private sector labour cost increases have started to tail off while public sector cost increases have rocketed upwards. I am advised that public sector pay increases are being driven by two main factors: the first is the result of pay equity claims, and the second is the effect of the public sector pay adjustment and other settlements agreed by the previous Government.

Grant McCallum: Is there a breakdown of these public sector pay increases?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. For the purposes of the labour cost index, Stats NZ divides the public sector into industry groupings. Labour costs in public administration and safety, covering both central and local government administration, rose 5 percent over the past year. In education and training, they rose 7.5 percent. And in healthcare and social assistance, they rose a very substantial 10 percent over the past year. I’m advised that an annual pay increase of 10 percent for the health sector is the highest for any public sector industry grouping since at least 2002, when the Public Service Commission’s dataset began.

Grant McCallum: What is the Government doing to manage high wage growth in the public sector?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Earlier this month, the Government issued a workforce policy statement that sets out how public sector agencies, including Crown entities, should approach a range of workforce matters, like remuneration, negotiation of employment agreements, pay equity, diversity, data, and information. I should mention that the context for this workforce policy statement is that, unlike members opposite, this side of the House does not believe there is a magic money tree at the end of the garden. Government agencies should be delivering better public services to New Zealanders but also doing so in a way that is fiscally sustainable and respects the fact that they are funded from taxpayers’ money. The Government has, for example, set a clear expectation that future workforce costs, including collective bargaining and pay increases, will be funded from within existing agency baselines. My expectation is that public wage growth will start to level off as inflation settles within the band and as implementation of the workforce policy statement influences pay decisions and bargaining.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

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

As in the case of the first two answers to the identical question, the same answer applies now.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree with the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, who said—and I quote—“Do I believe in climate change? The answer is for thousands and thousands and thousands of years there has been climate change”, or does he accept the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: What did Ngata say?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Ha, ha! Well, see, what Ngata would have said was that—and you’ll see it in Samoa and you’ll see it in the Cook Islands—pre-European times, no one lived by the foreshore or on the lowlands. They lived as high as they possibly could, because over the centuries and down through millennia, there had been climate change—that’s my answer to that. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait till you get a bit of quiet.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister accept the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is we have done our best to bring ourselves up to date constantly with the science on these matters. But I want to say to that member something, that you can laugh and scoff but when the Māori were in Christchurch before European times, they never lived where the earthquake happened. We ignored them at our peril. But here she is thinking that’s a laughing matter. And the same was with the Pacific Islands. Down through millennia, they understood there are times of danger with climate change and they never lived in the low part of the country—that’s all I was saying. But to turn that into some kind of climate denial argument is ridiculous. For example, it’s like Mr Hipkins—is he going to Tonga? Is he going to Tuvalu for his first leadership airfare? No; he’s going all the way to London to the Labour Party conference. That’s how much he cares about climate change in the Pacific. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, hang on. We are going to have silence while questions are asked.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Government committed to doing its part to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: For the umpteenth time, the Prime Minister in countless speeches—as has the Minister in charge of these matters in terms of the environment—countless times has said that, so I cannot understand why on earth, given the progress we’re making, that question is being asked here today.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree with comments from former Tuvalu Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga, who said, when speaking about this Government’s planned reversal of the oil and gas ban, “don’t forget that whatever you are going to do, it’s going to increase greenhouse gas emissions, which are going to sink the islands of Tuvalu and kill the people.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What I can agree with is that present Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have expressed their gratitude to New Zealand for the money that we have set aside in the present Budget for climate change resilience and the long-term survival of that country. They have been enormously grateful to us for us doing that—not just words but real action.

Question No. 5—Health

5. to the Minister of Health What progress has been made in lifting immunisation rates for New Zealanders, particularly high-needs communities?

In December, the Government announced an investment of $50 million over two years for Māori health providers to help lift immunisation rates, particularly amongst high-needs communities, children, and older people, who we know have especially poor vaccine coverage. Already we’re learning that this programme is delivering positive results. Preliminary data shows that for the lead provider organisation, its teams delivered 33,330 vaccinations up to 30 June 2024. That’s more than three times their initial target of 10,000 vaccinations. This is exactly the kind of investment in front-line services—managed and delivered locally—which we need more of, to help deliver on the targets we have set to get our health system back on track.

Sam Uffindell: How has the immunisation rate changed over the preceding decade, particularly for our most high-needs communities?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: It is a challenging state we’re in with regard to immunisation rates. Immunisation is one of the most important ways to protect New Zealanders against diseases such as influenza, whooping cough, and measles. However, since 2017 total immunisation rates for all children at 24 months have dropped from around 93 percent to 81 percent at the end of last year. That is a decrease of roughly 12 percent. Māori rates have dropped by around 26 percent from 2017. We need to do better. Over the years, we’ve seen a lot of talk about supporting vulnerable communities which hasn’t, clearly, resulted in better outcomes. This Government will change that because we’re committed to doing better for all New Zealanders.

Sam Uffindell: Why did the Government prioritise this investment?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: As I said earlier, immunisation is one of the most important ways to protect New Zealanders against preventable diseases, so investment in immunisation will always be a top priority for this Government. This investment reinforces our commitment to get immunisation resources and funding as close to the front line as possible. Improving vaccination rates will also contribute to a range of health targets, including helping reduce emergency department wait times by preventing New Zealanders from becoming seriously ill.

Sam Uffindell: What role do targets have in improving health outcomes for New Zealanders?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We want the health system to do better across the board. In recent years, immunisation rates for children have dropped, people are facing long delays accessing cancer treatment, emergency department wait times have risen, as have wait times for first specialist assessments and elective treatment. Performance against these has been well below acceptable for some time. That’s why we have put health targets back at the forefront of our decision making. We believe that targets help direct attention and resources to where they are most needed. Targets also provide the accountability and transparency that the system needs to ensure it is delivering timely access to quality healthcare, because that is what New Zealanders need.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. to the Minister of Finance: Does she agree with Nicola Willis, who, prior to the 2023 election, said, “For many people, things feel so bleak that they are looking at opportunities overseas and voting with their feet, with almost 40,000 Kiwis permanently leaving the country last year”; if so, why did 80,000 Kiwis move overseas in the year up to June 2024?

I agree with Nicola Willis’ full quote from 2023, which was “Labour has mismanaged and vandalised the economy on a scale unlike anything we have seen in recent history. Government spending is up 80 percent—$1 billion a day more than 2017. The current account deficit is the largest in the OECD. The economy has been anything but well managed. For many people, things feel so bleak that they are looking at opportunities overseas and voting with their feet”. To the second part of the question, the member is referring to two different measures, so her comparison is misleading.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are Kiwis leaving in record numbers because, as Alan Pollard, Chief Executive of Civil Contractors New Zealand put it, “unfortunately, our business is largely downsizing, downscaling, putting off staff and parking up equipment because they don’t have that confidence going forward.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as has been traversed in this House several times, we have inherited an economy that was vandalised and mismanaged by our predecessors. This was characterised by a free-wheeling big spending Government that pumped inflation into the economy, left the Reserve Bank in a position of having to hike interest rates very high. That has had a sad effect on our economy, and I am pleased that good managers are back in charge and that inflation and interest rates are coming back down.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are Kiwis leaving in record numbers because, since she took office, there are 5,000 fewer jobs in manufacturing and 8,000 fewer jobs in construction?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, that question doesn’t even make sense. She’s linked two things in a way that I think, if she reflects on the question and looks at it grammatically, doesn’t actually make sense. As I said in answer to the previous supplementary, it is true we have inherited an economy that is very challenged and we are doing the work required to fix it.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are nursing graduates and junior doctors leaving because they are concerned the Government won’t provide them with jobs?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Have the 30,000 young Kiwis that have left the country done so because they do not want to live in a country where the Government does not believe in climate change and actually makes it harder for them to buy a home?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It would be easier to address her questions in a serious and fulsome manner if she didn’t make wild accusations. We’re a Government that believes in climate change, that is currently consulting on our emission reduction plan, which relates directly to our obligations in the zero carbon Act, and I would urge the member to refrain from such exaggerations in her future questions. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: There was so much noise coming from this side of the House that I couldn’t hear that answer. In future, I will ask for the answer to be repeated in silence. So we’ll just have a little bit of decorum, thank you very much.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are Kiwis leaving in record numbers because they see there are fewer jobs, a tax cut that won’t help them if they’re unemployed, and a Government that has no plan and is doing nothing to help?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, not only does that member choose to defend the economic management of the last Government which directly contributed to inflation being higher than it should have been, and therefore interest rates having to rise higher to counter it with devastating economic effect, she also continues to be opposed to tax relief which has assisted 3.5 million New Zealanders. If she wishes to campaign on increasing tax relief, along with her colleague David Parker, the Piketty pirate, then I wish her luck.

SPEAKER: That last comment wasn’t particularly parliamentary. Can we have Laura Trask—question No. 7.

Question No. 7—Internal Affairs

7. to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent announcements has she made about phase 2 of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons?

Yesterday, I announced the detailed terms of reference for phase 2 of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned. Phase 2 will run from November 2024 to February 2026 and will review matters that the public believe are not adequately addressed in phase 1, including vaccines, lockdowns, and other matters. I also announced that Grant Illingworth KC will chair the second phase, supported by Judy Kavanagh and Anthony Hill as commissioners. Together, they have experience in litigation, economics, and public health, and I have great faith in them to lead the inquiry.

SPEAKER: Thank you. Can I just say, for the next answer, can the member just sort of move a bit closer to that microphone.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Yeah, they’ve never given me one here.

SPEAKER: Yeah. OK, let’s get that sorted. Is someone going to make a note of that? Carry on.

Laura Trask: What other matters will phase 2 of the inquiry cover?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Phase 2 will cover the key decisions taken by the Government on the use of vaccines, including mandates and safety, and the use of lockdowns, in particular the extended lockdowns in Auckland and Northland. The inquiry will assess whether key decisions struck a reasonable balance between minimising COVID-19 and social and economic disruption such as health and education outcomes, as well as the impact on inflation, business activity, and social division.

Laura Trask: Why is it important to have a second phase on the inquiry?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I’ve heard from many members of the public that the terms of reference for the first phase of the inquiry were too narrow and did not cover many issues of importance to New Zealand. We have listened. The purpose of the inquiry is to learn from the past so New Zealand is better prepared for any future pandemics. This expanded inquiry will help to address questions the public still have about how the Government handled the pandemic and will benefit both future Governments and the public in responding to a future pandemic.

Laura Trask: Were the public able to contribute to the terms of reference?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Yes. More than 13,000 people submitted in February and March of this year to shape the terms of reference for phase 2 of the inquiry. New Zealanders have had their voices heard and the commitment in the ACT coalition agreement to broaden the terms of reference, subject to public consultation, has been met and delivered on.

Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment

8. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent changes has she made to support people on the jobseeker benefit into work?

Yesterday, I outlined our Government’s employment investment framework, which will guide how the $1.1 billion available for the Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD’s) employment support schemes is spent. Three major changes will result from this new framework: (1) 70,000 people will have an MSD case manager by the end of the year; (2) we are putting beneficiaries first in the queue for support schemes that boost their job prospects; and (3) we are supercharging intensive support for young job seekers. Our Government continues to take action to support more New Zealanders into work, and the employment investment framework is one tool to achieve this.

Dr Carlos Cheung: How will the employment investment framework work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Our employment strategy will be guided by the evidence of what works and what doesn’t. Where programmes succeed, they will continue, but where they are not delivering results, we will not be afraid to stop them. The framework includes a greater focus on case management, which will rapidly expand to cater for 70,000 people by the end of the year, as well as putting beneficiaries first in line for support schemes that boost people’s job prospects. Non-beneficiaries will still qualify for employment support, but we don’t want those most at risk of long-term welfare dependency missing out. That’s why our Government is putting beneficiaries first in the queue for help.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What are the targets that have been set to put beneficiaries first in line for support schemes?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As part of the new employment investment framework, I announced new targets to prioritise people on the jobseeker benefit for employment scheme support. This will see a greater proportion of MSD’s spending on employment programmes, such as Mana in Mahi and Flexi-wage, go towards supporting people on jobseeker benefits, rather than non-beneficiaries. Two targets have been set to achieve this. The first is to have 70 to 75 percent of those supported by Flexi-wage being people on jobseeker support by the end of June—an increase of 49 percent—and, second, to have 50 to 55 percent of those supported by Mana in Mahi being people on the jobseeker support by June 2025, an increase from 31 percent.

Dr Carlos Cheung: How will these changes help young job seekers?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We are supercharging intensive support for young job seekers by reserving 30 percent of places with in-person case managers for those aged 18 to 24. This will mean that more than 27,000 young job seekers—or 65 percent of them—will receive intensive, one-on-one support under our Government, from either a case manager or a community-led programme. We are determined to have 50,000 fewer people on the jobseeker support by 2030, and to give young New Zealanders a brighter future than almost two decades on welfare, which would otherwise be forecast.

Question No. 9—Police

9. to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by his response to being asked what is the biggest thing he’s done since he took office, “Oh, I think probably, the letter of expectation that I put out there for the commissioner”; if so, why?

on behalf of the Minister of Police: At the time it was said, yes. Letters of expectation set a framework and pathway for results, and it remains an important document by which I hold the commissioner to account. As a result of this letter of expectation, Police have stood up community beat teams, a national gang unit, and, soon, gang disruption units in districts. There have been no incidents of gang tangi taking over towns and preventing the public going about their lawful business. Legislation will soon empower police to disrupt and disperse gang gatherings, and gang patches will be banned in public places. In the first five months of this year, compared with last year, there was 6 percent fewer serious assaults resulting in injury, 15 percent fewer burglaries, 10 percent fewer aggravated robberies, and 10 percent fewer stabbings. Auckland Council has reported a 35 percent reduction in crime in the CBD, and Heart of the City is saying there is 50 percent less retail crime. While levels of retail crime remain unacceptably high, Police tell me the rate of increase has halved, and as the member will be aware, in the first six months of this year there was a 14 percent increase in foot patrols for the same period. There is, of course, more work to do to fix the crime hangover that this Government inherited, but we are getting on with the job of seeing good progress.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is he concerned that weekly methamphetamine levels in Auckland have increased by 61 percent when compared to quarter 1 of 2023, to quarter 1 of 2024, and, if so, what action is being taken to reduce increasing methamphetamine levels?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: On behalf of the Minister, there is obviously a lot of work still to be done to bring gang organised crime under control. There is a programme of work that includes setting up the national gang unit, and more work will continue to proceed in that space. The use of methamphetamine is abhorrent, and we are serious about getting on top of it.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How can he claim to be backing the front line if he stands by while Nicole McKee excludes A-category firearms from the firearms registry?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: On behalf of the Minister of Police, we are working, as the Minister is, on ensuring that gun safety and the safety of the public is paramount, and we will continue to ensure that is the priority for this legislation.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will A-category firearms be excluded from the firearms registry?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: That is a piece of legislation that is being worked on by Minister McKee, and that will be part of the process we are working through.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It would occur to you that the last two questions should have been asked of the Minister in charge—

Hon Ginny Andersen: It was.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I beg your pardon?

Hon Member: He’s not here.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, the Minister in charge is the Minister over there—McKee is the Minister in charge.

SPEAKER: No, hang on—no comment on a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’m asking why she was allowed to carry on when she could have had the chance the next day or today of asking the question to the right Minister—if she was, of course, serious about it.

SPEAKER: Well, I think the point is that by asking a Minister a question that might be slightly related but not necessarily the Minister’s portfolio, there simply isn’t going to be the answer that might otherwise be expected.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. How are New Zealanders meant to feel safer when he has reduced Police funding by $108 million, reduced the number of front-line police, and cut staff in Police by 248 since he took office?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As the member will be aware, there have been no reductions to front-line policing, and the public can feel safer because the reality is there have been 14 percent more foot patrols nationwide, 10 percent fewer aggravated robberies, 15 percent fewer burglaries, 6 percent fewer serious assaults resulting in injury, and 10 percent fewer stabbings.

Question No. 10—Workplace Relations and Safety

10. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she believe employees are ever wrongly categorised as contractors; if so, what remedy do they have to change their contract status?

Yes, I’m aware that miscategorisation of worker status has been occurring for years, and I believe this uncertainty is an issue for both workers and businesses. Workers who believe they’ve been miscategorised can challenge their status under section 6 of the Employment Relations Act. The Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court use a series of tests under the common law to decide whether a person is an employee or contractor. While in many instances it can be very obvious to both the business and worker whether a worker is an employee or contractor, the world is a complicated place and sometimes there is genuine uncertainty. The member will be aware I will be making decisions on how to clarify this distinction and provide certainty to both workers and businesses.

Teanau Tuiono: Will the Minister commit that her work to clarify the status of contractors will allow employers to exploit an imbalance of power to require employees to agree to describe what is, in truth, an employment relationship as something else?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The legal status quo has created uncertainty for contractors and businesses because of contractors’ ability to challenge their employment status if they believe they should be classified as employees. While I’ll still be considering advice on options—and those haven’t yet gone all the way through Cabinet—we want to clarify the original intent of contracting parties’ arrangements while minimising any risk of exploitation. But I’d also like to make the point to the member that most contractors are actually very happy with their status. Stats New Zealand reports 90 percent of contractors are happy with their current arrangements.

Teanau Tuiono: What does the Minister believe the implications of the recent Court of Appeal decision are for the coalition agreement commitment to “maintain the status quo that contractors who have explicitly signed up for contracting arrangements can’t challenge their employment status in the Employment Court.”?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I will make it clear to that member that what this Government is intending to achieve is clarity for both parties to a contract, about what was the original intent of their agreement. But I’d also just like to make the point that my understanding is that one party to the Court of Appeal decision has filed for an application for appeal, and I’d just point the member to Standing Order 116, which suggests that this would be out of scope for Parliament to be talking about.

Teanau Tuiono: Does the Minister acknowledge that the Court of Appeal’s decision ensures Uber drivers will now be recognised as employees, thereby securing rights like minimum wage, sick leave and holiday pay?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I would once again just refer to Standing Orders 117 and 116, which make it clear that in any case where notice of appeal is given, Standing Order 116 has effect from the time when the notice is given, until the appeal has been decided. It would be improper for me to comment on that member’s question.

Teanau Tuiono: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m just seeking some clarification here. The appeal was dismissed on the Monday and so, in that context, the Minister should be free to comment.

SPEAKER: The Attorney-General might like to comment.

Hon Judith Collins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It might be helpful—the point, too, is that the Minister cannot be asked to give legal advice on to the meaning of the court decision, but also, if this is subject to appeal, then she’s quite right that we need to be very careful as to how this is discussed in Parliament.

SPEAKER: OK, so without losing that question, do you want to reword it, just to have another crack at it, and can the Minister state if it can’t be an answer given in the public interest—state just that. You don’t need a list out of the book.

Teanau Tuiono: Will the Minister respect—can I put it that way?—the Court of Appeal decision around removing the rights of unsecured gig workers wrongly classified as contractors to challenge their employment status?

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, the Standing Orders are actually very clear that to raise such matters in a supplementary question—a supplementary question is listed in the Standing Order. You’ve now got a member who is getting up and, in my view, mischaracterising the court’s finding. It’s very, very difficult for a Minister to respond to that when he’s breaching the Standing Orders for the question.

SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s true, but the Minister can make it very clear about what the answer is. Everyone should know in the House that you don’t discuss matters that are currently before the courts—in this case, potentially before the courts—because of the, presumably, usually, 40 days for appeal, but that would be too long for there to be no discussion. I’ll ask the member to ask his question again. The Minister can answer it by saying exactly as the Hon David Seymour has suggested.

Teanau Tuiono: Does the Minister commit to not legislating over the Court of Appeal decision in removing the rights of insecure gig workers wrongly classified as contractors to challenge their employment status?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I do not wish to pre-empt any decision that may be found by any court of law, in this House. However, I’ll simply make it clear that the intent of this Government is to clarify the boundaries between employment and contract agreements.

Camilla Belich: Notwithstanding the Uber case, will the Minister guarantee that New Zealanders will still have the right to go to court to clarify their employment status under this Government, and, if not, why not?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: This Government hasn’t yet made any decisions on where we will land in order to adopt the coalition agreement, which is to uphold the intent of both parties when they’re signing up to a contract.

Question No. 11—Transport

11. to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made on speed limits in Christchurch?

on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I’m sure you will agree this is great news for Cantabrians. Yesterday, I announced the New Zealand Transport Agency will soon begin consultation on the South Island’s first 110-kilometre speed limit. This proposal of a new 110-kilometre speed limit on the safe Christchurch Southern Motorway of Rolleston, one of National’s first roads of national significance, is—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Where’s your Woodend bypass?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: —great news for Cantabrians, Duncan, and will result in faster journey times for those travelling in and out of Christchurch on this critical South Island route.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What impact would the speed limit increase have on Cantabrians?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Good question. On behalf of the Minister of Transport and all Cantabrians, boosting economic growth and productivity is a key part of the Government’s plan to rebuild the economy. This proposal supports that outcome by reducing travel times and increasing efficiency on this key South Island route. Started by the previous National Government as a safe road of national significance, the Christchurch Southern Motorway has reduced congestion, improved safety and travel time reliability—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Until you get to Brougham Street.

Hon MATT DOOCEY: —and luckily the last Government didn’t have time to cancel it. Increasing its speed limit to 110 kilometres per hour will further enable Cantabrians to get where they want to go quickly and safely.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: When can Cantabrians have their say on this proposal?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Oh, good question. On behalf of the Minister of Transport, I know Nicola Grigg will be interested that consultation on this important 110-kilometre per hour speed limit proposal opens on 3 December and will close four weeks later on 1 October. This Government recognises that roads of national significance improve safety—that’s right, Megan—which is why our new speed limit rule will enable new expressways built to safe standards to have 110-kilometre speed limits from the day they open without going through a separate consultation process.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: How does this proposed 110-kilometre speed limit on the Christchurch Southern Motorway fit into the Government’s plan to accelerate New Zealand?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, on behalf of the Minister of Transport, this Government is getting New Zealand moving again through our Accelerate New Zealand plan. Kiwis overwhelmingly supported not only this Government but our plan to accelerate New Zealand by reversing blanket speed limit reductions, delivering 110-kilometre speed limits on roads of national significance where it is safe to do so, and cracking down on the excessive use of road cones and temporary traffic management.

Question No. 12—Health

12. to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by her statement to Radio New Zealand that “The document you have referred to was not generated or collated by any members of my office, was not left on my desk by any member of my office, and was only received as a hard copy on 6 December 2023.”; if so, was the document received by her directly or another member of her office?

I believe I was clear in the House yesterday in response to oral question No. 10 that a range of information from various sources was provided to officials who then subsequently scanned the information into one document. The scanned version of that information is the one referred to in the Official Information Act response to RNZ from which the member is quoting. I remind the member the same document was provided to the Labour Party five months ago on 27 March. Regarding the second leg of the question, as a new Minister with multiple portfolios, I was provided with a large amount of background information relevant to my portfolios over the first few weeks after receiving my warrant. It would be impossible to categorically state the source of all the information I was provided; however, I can confirm, as I’ve stated repeatedly, it was not left on my desk by any member of my office. I’d just like to add that the member and some of her colleagues are fixated on claiming that I am connected to the tobacco industry. I want to again state to this Chamber: that is not true. I can state unequivocally I have never had any involvement or engagement with the tobacco industry. If the Opposition continues their smear and soundbite campaign, they can continue to do that and they will be judged on the fact that they will be unable to find any proof. We are, on this side of the House—

SPEAKER: That’s probably enough so far.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How was the document delivered to her office?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I will reiterate my previous answer that clearly the member missed: as an incoming Minister with a range of portfolios, I was provided with a large amount of background information relevant to my portfolios. It would be impossible to categorically state the source of all the information I was provided.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does she stand by her statement to Radio New Zealand that “My office and I have not been able to identify who authored the document or delivered it to me.”; if not, why not?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Yes.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: When, as she said in answers to oral parliamentary questions yesterday, health officials scanned the information into a single document, did those officials make any changes to the content?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Not that I’m aware of.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is she saying that the compilation of different information that she has described as historical policy positions did not occur in her office or by Ministry of Health officials?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I’m sorry, Mr Speaker, can she repeat the question?

SPEAKER: Yes.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is she saying that the compilation of different information that she has described as historical policy positions did not occur in her office or by Ministry of Health officials?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I think what she’s asking is did my office compile the document, and I think I’ve answered that repeatedly that my office did not compile the document. What I will, I think, highlight for the member, which may be of assistance, is that the information in the document does refer to a range of statements and policies and positions that were both historical and things that the New Zealand First Party campaigned on. But it may be of assistance to simply summarise that the document reflected coalition agreement commitments, and everything I have done is deliver on those coalition agreement commitments, which were published in November last year.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Look, I appreciate the Minister provided some information there, but did not address the substance of the question. But my point of order is in reference to her first part of her response. It was a very carefully worded supplementary that used the wording the Minister provided yesterday in her responses. There were a number of answers provided that disputed the fact that it was a document—it was a collection of information. So to try and avoid that path, the member has used the information the Minister gave the House yesterday. Therefore, for the Minister to stand up and say, “I don’t understand the question”; I’m not sure that washes and nor should it stand.

SPEAKER: Well, I took it that she didn’t actually hear the question. That’s why I asked for it to be stated again.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So, to repeat, is she saying that the compilation of different information that she has described as historical policy positions did not occur in her office and did not occur in the Ministry of Health?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The compilation which she refers to summarises historical policy documents, as I’ve stated repeatedly. It included historical policy positions, but it included a range of things, as I’ve stated repeatedly. The information included a range of things and we’ve traversed repeatedly that I don’t know the source because it came in my office with a whole lot of other information.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the vein of the question being asked a number of times, can she name all the people who didn’t write the document?

SPEAKER: Look, we don’t have time for seven billion names, so have you got another supplementary?

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How can she know the document was a compilation if she is already on record as saying she didn’t know where it came from and it was not compiled during the time it was in her office or afterwards?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Sorry, Mr Speaker. Could she repeat the first part of the question?

SPEAKER: Yes.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How can she know the document was a compilation if she does not know where it came from but it was not compiled during the time it was in her office or afterwards?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Mr Speaker, as you will become aware, it was easy to tell it’s a compilation because there are different typefaces. You can see different watermarks on the paper. They were separate pieces of paper that were handed to the ministry.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the vein of that question, has she ever heard that famous line “I shot an arrow into the air. Where it landed I knew not where.”?

SPEAKER: Have you got any other poetry that might help the afternoon move on a bit? Do you have another question? You’ve got another question, if you want it.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Did her or her office—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hold on. We’re listening to a question.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Did she or her office receive an electronic copy of the document before 6 December 2023?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As I’ve stated repeatedly, the document, as you’re referring to, was scanned by Health. It may have been emailed back to my office. As to the date it was received, I don’t know. It was, as I’ve said, a hard copy compilation of information that was handed—and it’s unfortunate in all of this discussion that we have missed the point that we have one of the lowest smoking rates in the world and we are working towards delivering the smoke-free target as we speak.