Oral Questions

1. to the Prime Minister: Mālō e lelei, Mr Speaker. Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, particularly continuing Labour’s work which began in September 2021 on AUKUS Pillar Two, with the help of the honest Hon Andrew Little’s endorsement.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who is correct: Mark Mitchell, who said on Newstalk ZB this morning that the Government would keep the firearms registry as it is, or Nicole McKee, who said, “The full category A licensing regime is not going to be effective, it’s going to be too costly, and it’s going to make people fearful of their safety.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that the final product has yet to be produced, and Ministers and the Cabinet are working on those. When that’s complete, we’ll be delighted to answer you in full.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So was Mark Mitchell incorrect when he said that the Government would be keeping the firearms registry as it is?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: One more time: the Cabinet, alongside the Ministers in charge of this legislation, is working on it at this point in time. We’re hearing submissions. We’re taking as wide as possible a look at this in the interests of New Zealand’s long-term safety, and not trying to make cheap political points out of it on the way through.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Leader of the Opposition is going to come to the House and quote members, then he has to have an accurate quote. He can’t make things up, and his last question—

SPEAKER: No, no, sorry—that’s enough.

Hon Mark Mitchell: —was made up. Quite simply, I didn’t say that.

SPEAKER: I think that the point has always been with supplementary questions that there might be—if he said it was a quote, he simply asked if someone was right. The assertion is enough in a supplementary question. So we’ll ask it again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Oh, I think we’ve already moved on from that question, Mr Speaker. I was up to my next one—

SPEAKER: Oh, have we? I wasn’t aware there was an answer.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —but I’m happy to go back and repeat it again, if you would like, but—

SPEAKER: No, no, no. I thought—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: OK. Why won’t he say that the Government won’t be changing the firearms register, given every party in Parliament except the ACT Party voted in favour of it, and his party, the National Party—to the Prime Minister—indicated before the election it would keep the firearms register?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: One more time: it’s been a longstanding habit of members of this side of the House to, as Phil Collins said, hear both sides of the story. We are finding out what that is, and when we know what both sides of the story are, in the interests of New Zealand’s long-term safety, we seek to make the right decision and not to cheaply politicise what was a disastrous event.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with his soon to be Deputy Prime Minister’s refusal to rule out leaving the coalition over the so-called Treaty principles bill, and, if so, what measures will he take to avoid the coalition collapsing?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It would be not respectful or democratic of me to seek to answer on behalf of the person—the Minister—he’s talking about.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. He is answering on behalf of the Prime Minister. He can’t say that it wouldn’t be respectful for him to answer on behalf of the Prime Minister when that is his job.

SPEAKER: Well, I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to think carefully about his question, because what the Prime Minister just responded was that he wouldn’t speak for the other party to the question—I’m sorry to be sort of slightly obtuse, but I don’t want to go into the details of your question. Why don’t you have another crack at it?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m being pretty generous.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Oh, so you’re happy for me to have another go without a penalty on supplementaries?

SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s right.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Oh, in that case, excellent. Does he agree with the soon to be Deputy Prime Minister’s refusal to rule out leaving the coalition over the so-called Treaty principles bill; if so, what will he, as Prime Minister, do to avoid that?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As I said before, it would not be respectful or democratic for me to seek to answer on behalf of another party’s leader. But I can say, in comparison with a previous coalition I was in in 2017 to 2020, at this present time, what you see over this side of the House is the epitome of harmony.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Just another day in paradise, is it? Supplementary, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, just a minute—a little bit of order would be good.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he support a second reading of the Treaty principles bill immediately following the first, given he has already said that he won’t support the second reading—meaning the select committee hearing would be a waste of time and money and, in his own words, be divisive?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I just say, on behalf of the Prime Minister, this is in a document called the coalition document of the last election’s decision, which has been out now for over seven months. I’d invite him and his ministerial colleagues babbling away now, because they know he’s in difficulty—he can’t even ask questions properly—and I’d invite the people in the gallery up there to go and read the coalition agreement and stop wasting Parliament’s time. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: When you’re ready.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Shane Jones, who said, “the Treaty of Waitangi Principles Bill will not be voted for by New Zealand First [after its] introduction [to] Parliament”; Christopher Luxon, who said National will pursue a Treaty principles bill to select committee and “that’s as far as it will go”; or David Seymour, who said he won’t believe the Prime Minister won’t “change his mind if the public really wants it”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It’s clearly in the coalition agreement, but I think one is entitled to believe that despite all of the previous statements, if there was prevailing compelling evidence to change one’s mind, as a famous economist once said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?” However, in this case, we take the view of the most learned Māori or, dare I say it, lawyer to come to this Parliament, who got a degree in two years flat, and in 1922, 102 years ago, he set out what Māori then believed and which we believe today, unlike these new people who decide in their woke manner, like Willie Jackson—all over the place. He doesn’t even stand up for the greatest leader Ngati Porou ever had, and decides he knows better. No, sir. We’re going to stick with a man called Ngata, Pōmare, Buck, and a famous guy who was Deputy Prime Minister in my position all those years ago—there’s only two of us, mind you—and he said the same. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: That’s enough. Hang on—just a minute. If we’re going to have that sort of barrage when a question is being answered to a question that was asked, then we’ll revert to silence very, very quickly.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So is the Prime Minister indicating—as he seems to have in his last answer—that he’s open to changing his mind on the second reading of the Treaty principles bill?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What I was enunciating was what the Prime Minister said in the coalition agreement, as did we. But I did offer the opinion that sometimes—and I don’t think it will happen in this case, of course, obviously—you do have a faint hope that others might have it right. But in the examples that I’ve given, that will not happen at this point in time. Do you know why? Because the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, according to Peter Buck and Pōmare, and, dare I say it, Carroll and, dare I say it, the genius Ngata, who got a law degree in two years flat, a record for any student in this country in law—there are no principles to the Treaty of Waitangi. In 1987, five judges wrestling over the Lands case—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Ha ha!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I know why that member is laughing—because she knows nothing about the law. But in 1987, the basis on which this is given—the Lands case—those five judges couldn’t agree, either. So stop coming here with your unlearned humbug.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware of the Deputy Prime—

SPEAKER: Mr Seymour, you might like to address your lapel.

Hon David Seymour: Oh, my apologies, Mr Speaker. I’ll now address you. Is the Prime Minister aware of the Deputy Prime Minister’s favourite legal scholar in the Māori world?

SPEAKER: Well, it’s a long way wide of the wicket, so I could probably answer it for you, but—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, can I say I know what the member expects as an answer, but, no, it’s not me in this case. It’s a famous man—who I would have thought that side there would admire—called Ngata, who gained a presence around all of Māoridom for his legal esteem and his knowledge about the history of this country.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: To the Prime Minister, if David Seymour won’t take him at his word that he won’t support the second reading of the Treaty principles bill and the acting Prime Minister has indicated that he—the Prime Minister—is open to changing his mind on it, why should New Zealanders believe what he’s saying on the Treaty principles bill?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I can’t answer that question other than say—and now I’m probably speaking for Mr Seymour—it’s in the Good Book: hope springs eternal.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The acting Prime Minister answering on behalf of the Prime Minister cannot stand up and say that he cannot speak on behalf of the Prime Minister. It is his job—that is why he is here.

SPEAKER: No, he didn’t say that. He said he can’t answer the question, which is a reasonable response, and then offered the hopeful position that hope springs eternal. So work out from that what you want.

Question No. 2—Finance

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

As I said yesterday, the Reserve Bank’s monetary policy committee last week cut the official cash rate (OCR) by 25 basis points to 5.25 percent. Reductions in the official cash rate and expectations about its future path affect both short-term and longer-term market interest rates. These include mortgage and business lending rates, which have a direct impact on New Zealand families and businesses, and through interest rates, the exchange rate, and a number of other channels. A reduction in the OCR provides a boost to the economy, which is positive for all New Zealanders. That’s why last week’s cut was a significant turning point for the economy.

Tim van de Molen: What is the expectation for future OCR cuts?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In last week’s Monetary Policy Statement, the Reserve Bank issued its own forecast for the future path of the official cash rate. This shows steady reductions from the current rate of 5.25 percent to a 3 percent OCR by mid-2027. The financial markets are more forward-leaning than this. Currently, the market is pricing in a faster pace of interest rate cuts and expecting that the OCR will reach 3 percent in February 2026.

Tim van de Molen: How have banks responded to the OCR cut?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’m advised that all major banks have cut their mortgage rates following last week’s Monetary Policy Statement. In some cases, that will take time to flow through to people’s mortgage payments, depending on whether and for how long they have fixed their mortgages. In other cases, it will flow through straight away. In any event, Kiwis can look forward to paying less interest on their mortgages and on their personal loans, and together with tax relief, which came in on 31 July, this will be a big help with the cost of living for New Zealand families.

Tim van de Molen: How do lower interest rates affect people’s mortgage repayments?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Individual circumstances vary a lot, and if people are interested in how things could change for them, I’d recommend they look at a reputable mortgage calculator, like that on the Sorted.org.nz website. But to give one example, a drop from a 7 percent mortgage rate to 6 percent for a family with a 25-year, $500,000 mortgage means their repayments would reduce by $145 a fortnight, and they, of course, could use that money elsewhere in the family budget or simply pay their mortgage down faster. Either way, they are significantly better off.

Question No. 3—Health

3. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his description of Commissioner Lester Levy’s view of Health New Zealand’s financial situation, “it’s not underfunding, it’s overspending”, and does he agree with that analysis?

Yes, we are a Government that’s committed to delivering better public health services. Vote Health will receive nearly $30 billion in funding this year, with Budget 2024 also seeing the largest ever commitment to funding for the sector, with a boost of $16.68 billion across three Budgets. However, we know that funding alone will not fix the issues that we inherited. We must get better at delivering health outcomes against the funding we put in. That is why one tool we have brought back is health targets to drive timely access to quality healthcare. If the only target in health is spending money, then the system will never genuinely improve. That is why we have focused our targets on patient outcomes. New Zealanders require a health system that works when they need it, and we’re committed to delivering that.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is Masterton hospital’s shortage of 40 nurses, leaving staff burnt out, demoralised, and unable to adequately supervise the care of dementia patients, a result of overspending or underfunding?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I’m aware of the shortage of staff at Wairarapa Hospital, and Health New Zealand is working actively to redress that. I am encouraged by the hundreds of new people who have come into the health sector, including nurses and doctors, every month under Health New Zealand recently.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is the repeated closure of understaffed Buller hospital, where a dying man sought medical attention, the result of overspending or underfunding?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Oh, I presume she’s not meaning the same Buller hospital that several months after she opened it in May last year was temporarily closed. I presume it’s that same hospital. If that’s the case, then I won’t be pre-empting the serious incident review that’s taking place with that, but I do indeed extend sympathy to the families. It’s a sad situation.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Are the doctors at Hutt Hospital being told to make beds and clean medical equipment a result of overspending or underfunding?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: That’s a policy issue for Health New Zealand, and we have a different understanding of what’s been happening there. In fact, what we’re understanding is that that policy continued under that member’s watch, as well.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is the instruction to doctors at Rotorua’s emergency department to also work at Taupō’s emergency department—a two-hour return trip away—the result of overspending or underfunding?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: That’s an example of regionalisation, when you get to distribute resources so that you get maximum benefit for patient outcomes across an area—an attempt that that member tried to make in the previous Government, but couldn’t get regionalisation over the line.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Are doctorless hospitals in Dargaville, Porirua, and Taupō a result of overspending or underfunding?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: They’re a consequence of health workforce shortages that Health New Zealand is seeking to rapidly address.

SPEAKER: Question No. 4, Catherine—[Interruption] No, hang on a minute. The member’s own side will quieten down, please.

Question No. 4—Immigration

4. to the Minister of Immigration: What recent announcements has she made about supporting businesses to access critical seasonal workforces?

Last week, I was proud to announce more support for Kiwi businesses by revitalising the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme and increasing the cap for the coming season to 20,750 workers—increasing by 1,250. I also announced that we’ve created a new subcategory of the specific purpose work visa to respond to the upcoming seasonal peaks. This will provide a streamlined path for businesses who need to bring in temporary seasonal workers. These changes will help rebuild our economy, grow our exports, support our key growth sectors and primary sectors, and provide important opportunities for work and skills development for our Pacific neighbours.

Catherine Wedd: Why did she make these changes?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: It’s clear to me that many of our immigration settings are not fit for purpose. While we have made some important changes earlier this year to the accredited employer work visa, further changes were necessary, particularly for those businesses that need access to temporary seasonal workers to grow productivity and increase our exports. My vision is to have immigration settings which strike the balance between providing businesses access to the workforce that they need to thrive and grow our economy, while ensuring that we are giving Kiwis every opportunity to be in work. Getting our immigration settings right is critical to this Government’s plan to rebuild the economy to get New Zealand back on track, and these changes are just the start.

Catherine Wedd: What feedback has she received about the changes to the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I have received overwhelmingly positive feedback, as I know that member has as well. The New Zealand Apples & Pears chief executive, Karen Morrish, has welcomed the changes and said that they will go a long way to easing pressures on apple and pear growers. Cameron Taylor from Taylor Corp, an orchard in the Hawke’s Bay, said, “We’re really pleased with the announcement of policy changes to the RSE scheme. They may seem small, but they will make a big difference, especially when the industry in Hawke’s Bay has some cyclone recovery ahead.” These changes are just the start. The next phase of our work programme will consider substantive longer-term options to further improve the wider RSE scheme.

Catherine Wedd: What feedback has she received about a seasonal subcategory of the specific purpose work visa?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Over the last few months, I’ve had the opportunity to talk to representatives of viticulture, horticulture, agriculture, rural contractors, and many more, who have spoken of the need for a streamlined visa pathway for seasonal workers. All have been overwhelmingly positive about the changes. For example, Philip Gregan from New Zealand Winegrowers said that “This was a good idea. It solves a problem that we’ve had.” and that “We’re very pleased with the outcome. We couldn’t have asked for more.” I want an immigration system that protects the integrity of our borders and creates opportunities for people to come here and make a meaningful contribution but also prioritises New Zealanders’ opportunities to work and thrive.

Question No. 5—Justice

5. to the Associate Minister of Justice: Why is this Government rewriting the Arms Act 1983?

The Arms Act is over 40 years old and it does need modernising. In 2019 and 2020, rushed changes were made to the Arms Act. Despite two law changes and two expensive firearms confiscations, New Zealanders are no safer, despite promises that they would be. More people were convicted of a firearm-related offence in 2023 than in 2019; it is up 18 percent. From 2019 to 2023, almost 2,000 gang members were charged with unlawful possession of firearms. This Government is committed to rewriting the Arms Act to target the real problem and increase public safety.

Mark Cameron: What feedback has she received on why change is needed?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I regularly receive correspondence from former and current police officers. A recent email reads, “As a front-line officer and association member, I can confidently say that the changes to the Arms Act have not improved public safety or prevented criminals from accessing firearms. Instead, they seem to target law-abiding citizens.” The numbers show that that officer is correct.

Mark Cameron: What measures is the coalition Government taking to crack down on illegal firearms?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: The previous Government spent more than $150 million on two firearms confiscations, promising to get illegal firearms off the streets once and for all. Since then, police have come across and seized more than 8,500 firearms in the line of duty—firearms that criminals never intended to hand in in 2019. The coalition Government knows that targeting law-abiding licensed firearm owners will not reduce the gun crime. That is why we are strengthening firearms prohibition orders to give police greater powers to search gang members and violent offenders for illegally held firearms.

Mark Cameron: Is the Government undertaking consultation as part of its Arms Act rewrite?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Yes. In 2019, the previous Government allowed only three days for select committee submissions and changed the Arms Act in just 10 days. This undemocratic process marginalised and disrespected those who deserved a say on the laws that are impacting them. The coalition Government has done initial, focused consultation with several stakeholder groups representing a cross-section of New Zealand society, including both firearm-owning and non - firearm-owning groups. This consultation is in addition to the select committee processes, which will allow every New Zealander the chance to have their say.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she maintain that A category firearms should be excluded from the firearms registry, and, if so, why, given that Alfa Carbines are incredibly popular with the criminal underworld and that 71 percent of police seizures of weapons are from the A category classification, which includes Alfa Carbines?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: As I’ve previously mentioned, of those 70 percent of A category firearms that have been found by New Zealand Police, 65 percent of them don’t actually have a serial number on them. I am committed to ensuring that the review of the registry will give us data and evidence as to how it can be effective, if, indeed, it needs to stay.

Question No. 6 to Minister

A point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. This question was originally submitted to the Associate Minister of Housing (Social Housing) and was transferred to the Minister of Housing. Now, we absolutely accept that that is the right of the Government to do so, but when looking at Speakers’ Rulings, it’s our position that in this instance it should not have been allowed to be. The question as originally submitted was “Does he stand by his statement”—

No, no. Look, you’ve set it up. I think—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Well, sir, I have Speakers’ rulings—

SPEAKER: Yeah, I know. You’re trying to make a case that’s already been made in the Clerk’s Office, and I have agreed that the transfer is quite reasonable.

Well, speaking to that, sir, you have asked us on a couple of occasions now to come to you with points of orders quoting Speakers’ Rulings. I’d like the opportunity to do that.

Well, you’re welcome, but it won’t be now; you can come and see me later. Just go ahead with the question.

We’re not asking.

Not asking the question? Fair enough. Question No. 7, in the name of Suze Redmayne.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to read out the question from the Hon Kieran McAnulty to myself so I can answer this very important question about the Government’s outstanding record of getting a thousand kids out of emergency housing, motels, and into homes.

Just a minute—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to that point of order, sir—

SPEAKER: It doesn’t particularly help order—well, he’s sought leave, actually, so I’ve got to put leave. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I respect that. I do feel, though, that—

Hon Nicola Willis: What a wimp.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —by not having—and I’ve just been called a wimp. Now, I do—

SPEAKER: Well, OK, that sort of across-the-House stuff has got to stop. It’s no good people coming moaning to me about the way people are being spoken to if they are then adding to it during the proceedings.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Sir, I do believe, with respect, that if I was given the opportunity to point out Speakers’ rulings and why in this instance I believe an error has been made, then disorderly conduct like that would have been avoided.

Yes, I know. But you could also argue that given that there is a process before a question ever gets here and there is a decision made about the validity of the transfer, you were actually questioning a decision made by the Chair through the Clerk’s Office earlier.

I accept that, and so I thought about this carefully and I’d like to think that in my interactions with you, you’d consider that we do so in a respectful manner. But, in this instance, there are two Speakers’ rulings which give clear criteria on which a question that has been transferred could be disallowed, and it is our genuine position that in this instance that criteria has been met. Having had the opportunity to put that to you for your consideration, given that it is the House that, as a result of this decision, has not got the opportunity to ask the Minister who made the statement whether he stands by that, I’m simply requesting that I be able to make that case.

Well, I tell you what, we’d save a whole lot of mucking around and rumptying—and if you can do it relatively quickly, that would be helpful.

Certainly, and I’ll do my best, sir. Thank you for the opportunity. Speakers’ ruling 171/5(1) makes it clear—and this is not in dispute—that a “Government has the right to transfer a question,”; however, not in any way that it “obstructs the answer.” When the question intended to ask a Minister to stand by a statement that he had made, and then that be transferred, there is no possible way that another Minister can answer that question. I accept, however, that the second leg does ask around the issue of funding for houses. However, the answer to that is contingent on the answer to the first part of the question. It says “[and,] if so,” then carries on. Now, Speakers’ ruling 172/1(1) again makes it clear that it is the Government’s right, and that is not in dispute. However, it does say that if the Minister being questioned “could be the only person who had particular information and the question was transferred to make it not possible to obtain that information, then I would have real concerns.” There’s no possible way that another Minister could answer the question that was posed.

It does go on to the second point: “(2) Opinions about whether people stand by certain statements are hardly matters that reach” the disallowing of the transfer—and I accept that. But the question was not asking the opinion of a certain statement; it was asking the Minister to stand by his own statement, and, in fact, by the Clerk’s Office rewriting it so that it became relevant to the transferred Minister, it is now asking for the opinion of that Minister on a certain statement. So there’s a contradiction there, and that’s why, on that basis, I believe the wrong judgment has been made here.

Well, thank you for letting me know that the wrong judgment has been made—

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Yes, just a minute, and I’ll come to you—yeah, the Hon Chris Bishop.

Well, the Government has the right to transfer questions to whoever they see fit. We have done that.

SPEAKER: That’s not being disputed.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The reason we have done this—as Mr McAnulty even pointed out in his point of order—is that the second part of the question is what I am responsible for, as the Minister of Housing. So that is why we have chosen to transfer it. If the member had asked the Hon Tama Potaka, as Associate Minister, “Does he stand by his statement that he made as the Associate Minister”—that’s not in dispute—and left it there, well, that’s fine; it wouldn’t have been transferred, highly likely. But that’s not what he asked. He asked two completely separate—related but separate—issues in the one question. The Government felt it best that I answered that question. Therefore, we’ve transferred it. I’m very happy to answer the question and account for it.

Speaking to that point of order—

SPEAKER: OK, this is going on a bit, but this is the last comment I’ll take on it.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: That, again, was acknowledged, but the point is that the way the question was asked, in the middle, it says, “[and,] if so,”. If the second part of the question was asked at the start, I would not have any case. But the second part of the question cannot be answered unless the first part of the question is answered first. It is: “If the Minister agrees or stands by that statement, then what does he think about this?” He can’t answer the second part without giving a response to the first, and there’s no possible way that Minister Bishop can answer that question when it’s asking Minister Potaka if he stands by a statement that Minister Potaka made himself.

Well, only in so much as an Associate Minister speaks for the Minister, in fact. Look, the general principle here is that if the House is unimpeded in getting an answer, then the transfer should be allowed. It would only be if there was very specific knowledge—and that’s the case you’re making—but the Clerk’s Office, before they come to talk to me about these things, do have to assess also what is the substance of the question. The substance of the question is clearly the second part, so that’s why the transfer was allowed. But I’ll tell you what, I’m very keen on there being some degree of harmony around all these things, so rather than you going ahead today, why don’t you keep this question up your sleeve and have an extra one tomorrow.

Hon Chris Bishop: No, sorry—point of order.

SPEAKER: No, there’s no point of order here—that’s a ruling. That’s right.

Hon Chris Bishop: But because he can’t be bothered asking me the question—

SPEAKER: No, Mr Bishop—Mr Bishop.

Hon Chris Bishop: —you’re going to give him a freebie tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Mr Bishop, this is a point of disorder, if you want my view on it.

Hon Chris Bishop: Well, why do they get a freebie because he can’t be bothered asking a question?

SPEAKER: Mr Bishop, I’ve made a ruling and I’m not changing it. We’ll come now to question No. 7—Suze Redmayne.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a separate point of order. I just simply wish to withdraw—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, points of order are heard in silence.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I simply wish to withdraw and apologise for my earlier interjection.

Thank you.

Question No. 7—Agriculture

7. to the Minister of Agriculture: What is the Government doing to support the rural economy?

This week, the coalition Government outlined 20 actions we are taking to free up the rural economy. Our ambitious target of doubling exports by value over 10 years is an opportunity to work with the primary sector and to grow the economy, delivering greater returns at the farm gate. This Government has huge respect for our farmers and foresters. We continue to partner with them to drive down costs, improve profitability, simplify regulations, and build trust and confidence as we get Wellington out of farming.

Suze Redmayne: What actions has the Government taken to improve productivity and profitability?

Hon TODD McCLAY: In just nine months, this Government has begun reforming rules around biotech so that farmers can lead the world in innovation, restore the export of logs to India, increase funding for East Coast debris clean-up, provide a significant investment into animal facial eczema research, and increase the number of Recognised Seasonal Employer places to allow horticultural production to grow. By improving primary sector profitability, we can boost our largest export sector and deliver for all New Zealanders.

Suze Redmayne: What actions has the Government taken to reduce the regulatory burden on the primary sector?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Ministers Grigg, Hoggard, Patterson, and I have, along with our colleagues, taken the following actions: restore common sense to intensive winter grazing and stock exclusion rules, introduce pragmatic rules on on-farm water storage, and introduce legislation to cease the implementation of new significant natural areas. We’ve also repealed the burdensome log traders legislation and started the reform of farm plans and the replacement of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.

Suze Redmayne: What actions has the Government taken to support farmer confidence by reducing cost and complexity for rural New Zealand?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Again, in just nine months, the Government has disbanded He Waka Eke Noa and we’ve removed agriculture from the emissions trading scheme, commenced a review of biogenic methane, established a methane group to focus on reducing emissions, launched a select committee inquiry into banking, and invested more in catchment groups and rural support trusts to support our farmers through harder times. Eighty percent of our exports of goods and more than 350,000 jobs come from the rural sector. There is more to do, but the coalition Government has taken the first steps to walk with our farmers, and we thank farmers, foresters, horticulture, and other workers for their significant contribution to the New Zealand economy.

Question No. 8—Housing

8. to the Associate Minister of Housing: Why has the Government restricted eligibility for emergency housing despite the Ministry of Social Development’s advice that “Making these changes now creates a risk of increased levels of homelessness”?

This Government is very clear that households who have a genuine need for a short-term stay in temporary accommodation in emergency housing will be supported, and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has raised concerns early on in the process around the potential for homelessness. However, I’m not advised of any substantiated reports of increased homelessness. What I am advised on, however, is that, as a result of the decisions that this Government has made around prioritising children to go into emergency housing, 1,110 kids have moved from emergency housing into warm, safe, dry homes between April and the end of July. Kia ora koutou.

Tamatha Paul: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait for the House to resume silence. [Interruption] Sorry, just a bit of order, for goodness’ sake! Far too much noise coming from the Government side. Tamatha Paul.

Tamatha Paul: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does he stand by his statement relating to the drop in children living in emergency accommodation that “I’m not worried that some are now homeless.”, and, if so, is that why funding for community housing providers has reduced to only 750 new places a year under his Government?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: In the context in which the question was asked, and in relation to Priority One, I am absolutely confident that those 1,110 children have been placed out of emergency housing and into a warm, safe, dry home between April and July. I am confident and very aware that they are no longer homeless because the decisions that this Government has made has ensured that they go into warm, safe, dry homes.

Tamatha Paul: Where does he expect people to go if they are denied or kicked out of emergency accommodation?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Thank you for that question. Those whānau, those households, with genuine need for a short-term stay in emergency housing will be supported into housing. Those whānau who leave emergency housing are either supported into social housing, or accommodation supplement for private housing, or other areas of housing. Now, when we arrived in Government, we found that the data did not show where over 50 percent of people exiting emergency housing had gone to, but, as a result of the hard-working members of our team, we now know where nearly 80 percent of all those that exit emergency housing go to, including the 1,110 children who have gone from emergency housing into warm, safe, dry homes.

Tamatha Paul: Why does the Government think it’s fine for whānau to be left sleeping on the streets or in cars because they had “contributed to their homelessness”, and how is leaving someone on the street or in their car ever a just or acceptable response from an agency who should be there to help?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There are a lot of whānau across Aotearoa New Zealand that are doing it very tough. Last week, I was up in Tauranga and I met a young lady who had spent six years in emergency housing, had four children while she was in emergency housing, and, as a result of the Priority One decision that has been made by this Government, got a call in May to say that she had a home available. She moved into that home and was shocked to get the call, but is very happy, very warm, and very safe in that home.

Tamatha Paul: Why has he removed the requirement for MSD to grant emergency accommodation if declining would increase any risk to life or welfare of the applicant, and is he comfortable with the consequences this will have for homeless people, their wellbeing, and their lives?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Can I repeat, for the fourth time today: those people who have a genuine need for a short-term stay in emergency housing will be supported, and there is capacity in all the major centres such as Wellington for those people who have that genuine need. Kia ora tātou.

Tamatha Paul: Will his new responsibility framework for emergency accommodation include the Government taking responsibility for fuelling a homelessness crisis when they have stopped building thousands of new public homes and are celebrating evicting more people from public housing and private rental housing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Again, can I repeat that when we arrived in Government, we did not know where over 50 percent of people leaving emergency housing were going to. Now, we know for around 80 percent where they’re leaving to go to. We are very proud of the efforts that we have undertaken to get emergency housing back on track. Kia ora tātou.

Question No. 9—Housing

9. to the Associate Minister of Housing: What impact is the Priority One category having on supporting families out of emergency housing?

Very positive. Since April 2024, 540 households with children have been supported out of emergency housing into secure, safe, warm, dry social housing tenancies. Blue shoots, but over 1,100 children—in fact, 1,110 children to the end of July—no longer have to grow up in an unsuitable motel, which is an outcome that I and my erudite colleagues on this side of the House are very happy with.

Paulo Garcia: Minister, can you explain why the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) is unable to track housing outcomes for all households who exit emergency housing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: When we arrived in Government, we did not know where over 50 percent of households living in emergency housing were going to, but because of the hard-working people in our teams, we now know where nearly 80 percent of people leaving emergency housing are going to. Officials are working very hard to develop official reporting on all exits, but that will take time as it requires linking information from multiple systems, agencies, and other organisations. Our understanding is improving daily, but it’s unlikely we will have a complete view because people are not required to let MSD know where they live once they stop receiving assistance. We need to balance the requirement to monitor the effectiveness of our interventions with people’s right to privacy.

Paulo Garcia: What other steps has the Government taken to support people out of emergency housing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We recognise that those who stay longest in emergency housing have the most complex needs, which is why we’ve committed a further $84 million through the support of the Minister of Finance—the “Manu Pūtea”—to extend emergency housing support services for a further two years. That funding provides people in emergency housing with the dedicated tautoko that they need. We’ve also expanded the range of housing support products that MSD offers to cover a wide range of living situations, including flatting and boarding. Kia ora.

Question No. 10—Education

10. to the Minister of Education: Mālō e lelei, Mr Speaker. Does she agree with President of the New Zealand Principals’ Federation Leanne Otene’s statement that “The draft curriculum is still being written and no child tested on it had ever been taught it. The basis for the maths achievement ‘crisis’ was disinformation”; if not, why not?

Do I agree that the draft curriculum is still being written? No, I’m proud to confirm that in the last nine months under this Government, we have rewritten and completed the draft maths curriculum, which was sent out for consultation last week and has had overwhelmingly positive feedback. Do I agree that no child tested has ever been taught it? Well, given that 22 percent of students met the curriculum benchmark, clearly some of them had been taught it, but herein lies the problem: with a high-level, vague curriculum and multi-year bands, there was too much variation and inconsistency, and the result was that 78 percent of kids weren’t where they needed to be to experience success at high school. Do I agree that the basis for maths achievement is a crisis and disinformation? Either 42 percent or 22 percent—both of these numbers are equally terrible, and I am not interested in quibbling over how bad the crisis is. I’m focused on delivering change because I want parents to know that their kids are succeeding because it’s a priority for this Government.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does the figure that says only 22 percent of year 8 students were reaching acceptable standards in maths come from testing year 8 students against the curriculum they haven’t been taught yet?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I answered that exact question in my primary, if the member was listening. But the fact that the member has even asked this question indicates exactly why her Government struggled to make any progress. They missed all of the warning signs, they failed to address any of the problems, and they utterly let down a generation of Kiwi kids and they deprioritised maths from the regionally allocated professional learning and development (PLD) fund. If that member wants to know why she’s sitting on that side of the House, this is a perfect example.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Why does she expect year 8 students to be able to pass tests based on a curriculum that they haven’t been taught yet?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I said in my answer to the first question, clearly some kids had been taught the curriculum material, but a vast majority of them—

Hon Jan Tinetti: But they haven’t.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: —needed to know that curriculum material in order to experience success at high school. But the—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute—just a minute. Calm it down. Ask a question and listen to the answer, rather than giving it yourself.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The vague, high-level, multi-year curriculum meant that the material that our year 8s needed to know to experience success at high school, they didn’t have. We expected them to have it, but that curriculum meant that they weren’t reaching that level that they needed to be at to experience success at high school. There was no consistency across the board, which is why we have moved to implement this curriculum at pace next year.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Is it the Minister’s position that by year 8, students should be capable of knowing content they haven’t been taught yet?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The Minister continues to ask these ridiculous questions. The real question is: how do we move forward with a plan to make sure that our kids experience success at high school? We have implemented $20 million worth of PLD—all of the resources, teacher guides, and workbooks that our kids are going to need to succeed. We’ve made sure that our teachers are going to be having level 2 maths by the time they enter initial teacher education. It is a full plan that we are bringing forward to make sure that our kids are experiencing success at high school.

Katie Nimon: What feedback has the Minister received from principals and teachers about the Make It Count action plan?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, I don’t actually know where to start; there’s so much of it. Let me quote from a principal who said, “I applaud your attention to the dire level of mathematics knowledge and achievement in primary schools. As a once mathematics teacher, I now spend a lot of time coaching my grandchildren.” From another principal: “This is a great step forward in maths education in New Zealand. Thank you for ignoring the unions and thank you for being brave and getting stuff done.” From a principal: “Thank you, Erica, for your vision and leadership. Be encouraged to dismiss the naysayers and press on.”

Hon Jan Tinetti: Is the Minister concerned that zero percent of year 8 students are at a passable level for postgraduate biomechanical engineering studies because it’s a curriculum that they haven’t been taught yet?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Once again, at least 22 percent of our year 8s had been taught the curriculum. But—

Hon Jan Tinetti: And that’s exactly the ridiculousness of what you are doing.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: —we expected—

SPEAKER: No, just—once again, if someone asks a question, at least be polite enough to listen to the answer, even if you don’t like it. Start again.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The member asks the same question over and over again. The point is that if our children are to experience success at high school, we expected that they were being taught the content that they needed. Some of them were—22 percent—but a vast majority were not because of our vague, high-level, broad, multi-year curriculum. Next year, the public of this country can expect a year-by-year, structured curriculum that will implement structured maths so that all children will experience success at high school. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Yeah, it’s good—nothing you haven’t heard before. Question 11, Scott Willis. [Interruption] No, hang on—just wait until the House is polite enough to listen to your question.

Question No. 11—Energy

11. to the Minister for Energy: Does he consider the electricity market is broken, in light of the current electricity crisis and significant increase in gentailer profits?

I’m advised that the electricity market is facing extreme stress due to a significant shortage of energy. This shortage is leading to extremely high wholesale spot prices and is due to hydro storage, which is currently among the lowest since 1992; natural gas production, which has dropped 27.8 percent in production in the first three months of this year; and wind generation, which has also been below average since April this year, meaning 250 gigawatts less energy has been produced than was expected. In the short term, some immediate actions have been taken. Methanex has closed down production to provide that gas into the electricity market, Tīwai has reduced demand, and Transpower is consulting on bringing forward contingent supply. However, shortage and extreme prices are having a significant impact on businesses. The Government is considering a range of options, including the importation of liquefied natural gas.

Scott Willis: Does he agree with statements from his Associate Minister that there are “significant deficiencies” in the market and that gentailers are “profiteering” from New Zealanders?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: This Government is taking this issue incredibly seriously. We are receiving a range of advice on options that could be taken. What I would say is that we have an energy shortage, and much of that is due to the significant downgrade in our gas production this year, and we have to remember that for the last six years, the last Government demonised gas production in New Zealand and it has left us with a shortage in the energy needed. So when the wind isn’t blowing, the sun’s not shining, and we have a dry hydrological year, we don’t have the backup, and the only project they had on the table was a phantom project for 2038. They thought that was the answer. They have left New Zealand with an insecure energy sector, and they should take responsibility.

Scott Willis: Is he comfortable with gentailers raking in $512 million in profit over the last six weeks as electricity prices tripled, with more than 110,000 Kiwi households that can’t afford to keep their homes warm this winter, and, if not, what is he going to do about it?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, households don’t pay the wholesale spot prices, but we are concerned in particular around this issue, and that is why this Government has asked the Electricity Authority to publish data on the margins which have been made by generators over the last little while. They’re doing so on a weekly basis because we need to have that data to give confidence that price gouging is not happening, but I would make this point again: the reason we are having such significant and extreme prices is because we have an energy shortage in New Zealand. We have a dry hydrological year, wind generation has been below average, and—importantly—the downgrade in gas reserves and production has been because the last six years—

SPEAKER: Yep, very good.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —demonised gas production in this country.

SPEAKER: The point’s made.

Scott Willis: Can he explain exactly how the reversal of the oil and gas ban will fix the current crisis, considering that a new gasfield could take a decade or longer to develop and bring online and that we have more than 10 consented renewable energy projects ready to go now?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, we need more wind, we need more gas, we need more hydro—we need more energy in this country. And the last Government’s decisions—the reckless policies of the last Government—have meant that this country’s energy has been put at risk.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I probably don’t need to say it, but that’s the third occasion on which he has called the last Government reckless; he mentioned demonising gas twice, and phantom projects. They’re all entirely inappropriate.

SPEAKER: And we’re going to have that heard again, because there was talking all the way through it. So, Dr Duncan Webb, make your point of order one more time.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: The Minister, in his answers, has on three occasions attacked the former Government, using inflammatory language.

SPEAKER: Yes, that’s true, and I had noted that. But I think there was an equally inflammatory sort of aspect to the questions that were being asked, and I think it’s not unreasonable to refer to policies from a previous Government—we’ve been through this before. I think the last statement was something that I was about to stand on, and had started to, when you took to your feet. So we’ll just have a bit of a calm down on all of this. The next supplementary goes to Simon Court.

Simon Court: Does the Minister agree that fixing the electricity crisis requires a stable investment environment, and how important is a cross-party agreement on the use of natural gas to restoring confidence and stability for investors?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I completely agree with that statement by the member, and, in fact, I invite the Opposition to support this Government when we bring legislation to the House later this year to reverse the ban on oil and gas so that we can have the sovereign security of investment in this country once again in our energy security.

Scott Willis: Will he use his power to direct the Electricity Authority to enforce its code to create a fair market while people around the country are struggling to make ends meet in a cost of living crisis, and, if not, why not?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The market relies on supply and demand, and the issue here is that we don’t have enough supply in New Zealand. As I’ve already said, we have the driest hydrological year since 1992, we have wind generation which has been below average, we have had a significant downgrade in our gas production, and the reality is we need more production. We need more wind, we need more solar, we need more geothermal, we need more hydro, and we need more gas so we can have the market security of supply that New Zealand businesses and wholesalers have. The last Government’s policies have put that at risk, and we are having to clean it up.

Scott Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Point of order, Scott Willis—make sure it is a point of order.

Scott Willis: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I don’t believe the Minister addressed my question at all. I simply asked whether he would use his power to direct the Electricity Authority to enforce its code; I did not ask about other forms of generation.

SPEAKER: Well, with all due respect, I think that was an address to the question. [Interruption] Well, maybe not—perhaps you couldn’t get it, but I did. We’re moving on to question No. 12.

Question No. 12—Regional Development

12. to the Minister for Regional Development: What reports has he seen regarding regional development in New Zealand?

Recently, I visited Nelson and was hosted by a range of economic stakeholders, including the civic leaders. During the time that I spent there, the Hon Nick Smith made the point that Nelson has been through something of the winter of despair and was hoping that the efforts of our Government would spur on that spring of hope—hardly language I associated with that former parliamentarian. But I assured Nelson that if a project of significance was embraced by the broad leadership, civic-speaking, of that area, we would engage and agree to co-investment models; never co-governance. I can assure you I will be drinking the proverbial before I tolerate co-governance.

Jenny Marcroft: What announcements has he made regarding regional investment in infrastructure?

Hon SHANE JONES: Sadly, in more recent times, climate change rhetoric has been all heat and no substance. This Government is directing resources and attention to adaptation—things that will improve the daily lives of communities—and nowhere is that more important than coping with volatile weather associated with floods. To that end, $101 million has been allocated to 42 consented priority flood resilience schemes. I have had in the past a role to play in this regard. We will see more of this because the key point of the fund is that we are willing to contribute up to 60 percent of the cost with relevant authorities, who must ensure they have resource consents—no more promises while the treacle in local government prevents progress from being made because they can’t get out of their own way.

Jenny Marcroft: What reports has he seen on the effect of energy prices on regional businesses?

Hon SHANE JONES: I’m sure I express the concerns of the majority of the House that it is heartbreaking to see the hollowing out of regional New Zealand—in particular, the effect of Fred Flintstone economics now being brought home to bear—when former decision makers, former Ministers, did nothing to increase the resilience and the security of energy supply.

SPEAKER: And to the question.

Hon SHANE JONES: This has had the effect of worsening the capacity of manufacturers and industry to remain competitive in New Zealand. We have a crisis. We do not have internationally competitive energy prices, and it’s being driven by short-term, green-riddled thinking.

Jenny Marcroft: What are the causes of the energy crisis affecting regional industry?

Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, my colleague has indicated that we are facing a shortage of not only water; far be it from me to say wind and gas, but we will be introducing interventions to expedite the delivery of gas. But I say this to the House: I’m advised that for every $4 that the gentailers have paid out in dividends, only $1 has actually gone back into the productive capacity—i.e., invested in generative capacity. The capacity of these large organisations to improve our quality of life lies in front of them. Sadly, they seem to be favouring short-term profit over the need of New Zealanders for energy security.

SPEAKER: That brings to the end oral questions, and we’ll take 30 seconds while people who have to leave the House do so quietly, without discussion and without conferences in the walkways.