Oral Questions

I seek leave to correct an answer I gave in response to oral question No. 11 yesterday.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In my primary response to the Hon Ginny Andersen in oral question No. 11 yesterday, I stated that family violence and sexual violence were an important component of the Government target to reduce violent crime by having 20 percent fewer people be victims of assaults, robberies, and sexual assaults. I meant to say 20,000 fewer people, not 20 percent.

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Yes, and especially the steps that we are taking to restore confidence in New Zealand’s energy industry. New Zealand needs a rational energy policy, but, instead, previous Governments spent years undermining private sector investment, creating the conditions for future shortages and pricing spikes. Now Kiwis are experiencing the consequences. This morning, Simeon Brown called in the gentailers to make it clear that they must be competitive in the energy market. We’re taking action to restore confidence in the energy sector and to enable investment. That means ending the ban on oil and gas; it means cancelling Lake Onslow; it means bringing in fast track to enable more investment, including renewables; and, of course, it’s all part of our plan to rebuild the economy and to make sure we have energy security.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does his Minister for Trade’s statement “You’re not in Mexico now. We don’t do things like that here.” and subsequent dismissal of concern, calling it “friendly banter”, reflect the standard of behaviour he expects from his Ministers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It was good to see the Minister withdraw and apologise for that statement.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he aware that the number one excuse invoked by the perpetrators of harassment in the workplace, be it racism, sexism, or otherwise, is to excuse that behaviour as friendly banter, and, if so, is that the type of workplace culture he is trying to create?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just say it’s a bit rich coming from that member, who this morning, just a few hours ago, was on Radio New Zealand exhorting the fact that everybody needs to watch their rhetoric—a message that I have played back over a number of months—and yet he has a former Minister and a senior MP condoning putting up a video saying that I’m killing children. I don’t think that’s appropriate.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Points of order are heard in silence.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: The Prime Minister doesn’t have any responsibility for other members of Parliament. He does have responsibility for Ministers in his Government, and that was what my question was about. It was about a comment made by a Minister in his Government.

SPEAKER: Yes, I think the Prime Minister was making a point, but I’ll ask the Prime Minister to add to his answer.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I’ve been saying, I am asking all political leaders to watch their rhetoric.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: In that case, is his Minister of Foreign Affairs providing a running commentary on the gender of international athletes consistent with the standard of behaviour that he expects of his Ministers?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That claim and that question requires it to be authenticated. I have the post, it says nothing of the sort, and I expect him to get up now and apologise.

SPEAKER: Well, the first point is supplementaries are seldom, if ever, able to be authenticated, because they are part of an onflow of discussion. However, if the Minister feels that he has been in some way impugned, then he has a right to reply. Did you want to do that, or—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, by way of my point of order, I have given you my reply. His question is based on drivel, and a nonsense repeated by Louisa Wall, who herself didn’t bother to verify what she was writing about.

SPEAKER: Does the Prime Minister want to add anything to that?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister whether the statement made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs was consistent with the behaviour expected of his Ministers. He hasn’t even attempted to address or even reply to the question.

SPEAKER: Yes, I know. But if the Minister has taken a point of order taking exception to the question and the assertion of the question, he’s got a right to reply to that under our Standing Orders. He has replied that it is not accurate, and, therefore, his member’s word has to be accepted.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That doesn’t mean the Prime Minister shouldn’t then have to address the question.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s right, and I asked the Prime Minister whether he wished to. His comment was “No.”

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you indicating that a Prime Minister simply can say he doesn’t want to address the question, because the only grounds on which a Minister can say they’re not going to address a question is if they don’t believe it’s in the public interest to do so.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m not going to speak for the Prime Minister. I can assume that when the Prime Minister said that, he was imagining that since it had been denied, there wasn’t a great deal of public interest in continuing. But I will ask the Prime Minister if he would like to respond to the question.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, the Minister has denied it, but what I’d say is that Minister is doing an exceptionally good job as a Foreign Minister for New Zealand, and we should be incredibly proud of him because he is lifting the intensity and the urgency of our relationships across the Indo-Pacific like no one has done before.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does his Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage’s decision to remove te reo Māori from formal letters inviting an Australian Minister, who is a champion of indigenous languages, to New Zealand for Matariki celebrations reflect the standard of behaviour that he expects from his Ministers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I would just say to that member we value te reo in this Government. What I’d also say to that member is the correspondence was being directed to an Australian Minister overseas, and what I’d say to you is, in my dealings with Australians, it always pays to be incredibly simple and clear and use English.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Good to see him leading by example! Supplementary—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, just wait—just wait. The member’s own party is just taking a little time to settle.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does his Minister—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hang on, we’ll just wait until the House is quiet. Now we’re right.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Thank you. Does his Minister for Children’s refusal to answer questions in the House last week in preference to wearing an ACT Party badge reflect the standard of behaviour he expects of his Ministers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I fully support our Minister for Children and Oranga Tamariki—she’s doing a fantastic job. What I’d say to the member is what a petty line of questions that we’re seeing today. This is a country where our economy is in real trouble, this is a country where we cannot deliver health and education services as well as we need to—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —and we have rising levels of crime—

SPEAKER: A point of order—please sit down, Prime Minister.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —and this is the line of questioning from the Leader of the Opposition.

SPEAKER: Thank you. [Government members applaud] Right, another outburst like that and someone will, on a representative basis, take an early day. [Interruption] Who laughed then? Point of order, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Mr Speaker, this is actually a serious question. It’s the first time in the 16 years that I have been a member of Parliament that a Minister has refused to stand up whilst being in the House and answer a parliamentary question. That is the job of Ministers, and I think the Prime Minister should be expected to address that question, rather than do the very thing that he’s been telling everyone else all week not to do and attack the questioner.

Hon David Seymour: Speaking to the point of order, as a matter of technical fact, the Minister stood and sought a call to answer the question, but was forbidden under the conditions. So the member maybe hasn’t been here long enough to learn all the rules, but the way he’s characterising it is untrue.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to that point of order, Mr Speaker, I’m very familiar with the rules, and if the member had removed her badge and prioritised her ministerial responsibilities over wearing her ACT Party promotions, then she would have been able to answer that question. She chose to refuse to answer the question. That is a matter of ministerial conduct, and it is absolutely appropriate that the Prime Minister be questioned on that and asked to explain it.

SPEAKER: That’s right, and, unfortunately, I don’t think it’s the responsibility of the Prime Minister, that circumstance; that circumstance was entirely my responsibility. Does the member have another question?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. To be clear, I am not questioning the ruling that you made; you are absolutely within your rights, as Speaker, to do so. The Minister’s choice to not comply with your ruling and instead refuse to answer questions is absolutely a matter of ministerial conduct for which the Prime Minister is answerable—not you, as Speaker; the Prime Minister is answerable for that.

SPEAKER: Yeah, and I’m not going to let the question go any further, because this has been a matter that has been settled, and I expect that the current compliance of the rules of the House will continue. Without losing a question—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. You’ll note that the Opposition fully endorsed the position that you—

SPEAKER: Yep.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —took last week. However, there are not two standards for Ministers in this House. Ministers come under significant pressure—and the Minister was under significant pressure last week—and we respected the ruling that you made as the Speaker. That does not ever excuse Ministers of the Crown from being held to the same standard as every other Minister of the Crown. Every Minister of the Crown reports to the Prime Minister; their conduct is a matter for the Prime Minister to answer for. The question that I asked is completely within order. It does not in any way question the ruling that you made as the Speaker; it questions why a Minister in his Government prioritised promoting her political party over discharging her duties as a Minister.

SPEAKER: Ask the question one more time.

Hon David Seymour: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: A point of order—

Hon David Seymour: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: No, I’ve called him, sorry.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did his Minister for Children’s refusal to answer questions in the House last week, in preference to wearing an ACT Party badge, reflect the standard of behaviour that he expects of his Ministers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, the Speaker has addressed that question, I think, very well. There were challenges last week, he has reset the tone of this House, and we deal with that going forward.

Hon David Seymour: Mr Prime Minister, what in the view of this Government are the priorities of the New Zealand people—what do they need from the Government and the Parliament right now?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I thank the member for that question. What they want is a Government that’s going to rebuild the economy, restore law and order, and deliver better health and education. Those are the big issues that, outside of this place, New Zealanders are concerned about.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If that’s the case, why are his Ministers prioritising wearing party badges over answering questions, making racial taunts against members on the other side of the House, providing a commentary on the gender of international athletes, and refusing to use—

SPEAKER: Just a minute—just a minute.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —te reo Māori in their correspondence?

SPEAKER: Just a moment. There was considerable talk coming from the Government side of the House while that question was being asked. The Rt Hon Chris Hipkins will ask it again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If that is indeed the priorities of this Government, why are his Ministers refusing to answer questions in the House, and prioritising wearing party badges instead; making racial taunts to members on the opposite side of the House; refusing to use te reo Māori in their correspondence promoting things like Matariki; providing a commentary on the gender of international athletes; and, of course, attacking the courts—which is something we haven’t got to yet?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I observe is I see a hard-working Cabinet and a set of Ministers that are actually doing the business for New Zealand. I look at our economic Ministers who are actually reducing inflation, lowering the cost of living, and making sure we’ve got a growth plan, going forward. I look at our law and order Ministers and I see them focused on lowering crime. I look at our education Minister, who did more in six hours and six days than that member did as education Minister for six years. I look at what our health Minister is doing to make sure that we improve our health outcomes for Māori, non-Māori, and all New Zealanders. That’s what I see.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: What approach is the Government taking to managing spending and reprioritisation in Budget 2025?

The Government’s fiscal approach to Budget 2025 has three elements: first, there will be a very high bar for new initiatives in the Budget, and these will be limited to the most important Government priorities; second, significant savings will need to be found beyond those already identified in this year’s Budget; and, third, with a small number of exceptions, Government departments should expect to receive no additional funding in the Budget. They must manage cost pressures within their baseline, and if they want to do new things, they will need to reprioritise from existing activities. This Government is serious about responsible management of public finances.

Nancy Lu: How will she ensure departments are delivering within their baselines?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government has introduced a new tool called “performance plans”, which departments must now prepare. Departments must set out how they are planning to deliver within set baselines over the medium term. That will almost certainly involve trade-offs. Performance plans must be clear about those trade-offs so Ministers can make the necessary decisions. Performance plans will also set out any risks to financial sustainability, department performance, or delivery, and explain how those risks will be managed. Performance plans are an important part of our Government’s approach to Budget 2025 and to future Budgets, as well.

Nancy Lu: What sort of information will performance plans contain?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Among other things, a performance plan must provide information about a department’s purpose and resources, its impact—for example, how the department is currently delivering value—and the drivers of its cost pressures and how these will be managed. This will help change people’s focus to medium-term fiscal sustainability and away from the idea of an annual Budget lolly scramble.

Nancy Lu: Where are the requirements for performance plans set out?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Last week, the Cabinet Office released a circular setting out in detail the requirements for developing and maintaining performance plans. This can be found on the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet website. Over the past six years, Government spending has been taken from $80 billion a year to $140 billion a year, and, in response, this Government is embedding a culture of responsible spending, restoring fiscal discipline, rightsizing the Government’s footprint, and improving the efficiency and productivity of spending. Performance plans will help achieve that.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Yes, and especially this Government’s action to enable more energy investment and to fight climate change. We need more gas and more renewable energy if we want to fight climate change and grow our economy, and now our Government is taking action to achieve exactly that. We are ending the broken ban on offshore gas exploration, we are bringing in fast track to enable more investment in renewables, and we won’t beat climate change by importing more coal from offshore while making it so hard to build a new wind farm or a solar farm. So I’d say to that member, if she’s sick of the bumper stickers and slogans and actually wants to fight climate change, get on board.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his statement “we know that … the promise and the obligations of the Treaty were not upheld by the Crown.”, and, if so, can he outline what those promises and obligations are by defining article 1 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, in answer to the first part of the question, yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How would the Prime Minister define article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m well aware of the articles; I don’t think I need to define them for you here in this House.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How would the Prime Minister define article 3 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Equal citizenship for all.

SPEAKER: Supplementary question, the Rt Hon Winston Peters—and we’ll hear it in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Before the Prime Minister hears the Green Party’s version of the Treaty of Waitangi, will he take time out to see what the most famous Māori politician in this country, who got a law degree in record time between any European or Māori to get a law degree—in two years flat—thought about the Treaty of Waitangi when he wrote about it 102 years ago?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Apirana Ngata?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yep.

SPEAKER: Does the Prime Minister want to answer that question? That was a question, I think.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Oh sorry, that was a question?

SPEAKER: Yeah.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I often have the history of Apirana Ngata—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, hang on—just a minute.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —quoted to me by the right honourable member. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait a minute. OK, I think we’re right now.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister tell the House what He Whakaputanga is and does?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, the member may want to get into this conversation—I’d just say to her that on this side, in our Government, what we’re focused on is improving outcomes for Māori. I think it’s incredibly sad that only 12 percent of our Māori students are actually at where they need to be at maths at year 8, and that’s the thing that we should be talking about in this House and that I haven’t heard from the Opposition.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Should New Zealanders watching be concerned that their Prime Minister is demonstrating a clear lack of understanding about the founding documents of this nation’s constitution while progressing legislation at an unprecedented pace to undermine it?

SPEAKER: Before I call the Prime Minister, can I just point out that the member’s question asked, “Does he stand by his Government’s statements and actions?” Now, the questions have to relate to statements and actions. You might want to just think about rewording that last question.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Should New Zealanders watching be concerned that their Prime Minister is demonstrating such a clear lack of understanding about this nation’s founding documents while progressing legislation—i.e., this Government’s actions—at pace to undermine that very constitution?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What New Zealanders watching will actually see is a Government that is focused on the things that they care about. They want us to fix the cost of living, they want us to restore law and order, and they want us to deliver better health and education, and if they’re watching, that’s what they’ll be seeing through this House.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Kia orana katoatoa, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by her statement, “Our Budget was very deliberate in the funding of core priorities because our priorities are the same priorities as New Zealanders”; if so, is she concerned that her priorities are disconnected from everyday New Zealanders?

This is exactly the same primary question as the member asked yesterday, so you won’t be surprised that the answer is also exactly the same. In answer to the first part of the question, yes; in answer to the second part of the question, no.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it a priority to support Kiwis into work when unemployment is up to 4.6 percent and her only solution is to sanction beneficiaries?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, it is a priority to support New Zealanders into work, and today’s unemployment statistic is yet another reminder of how letting inflation get a grip on the economy was so damaging. That is the legacy that we have inherited, and this Government is not only rebuilding our economy; we are also taking sensible, prudent steps to ensure that New Zealanders in receipt of a benefit are properly incentivised to find work.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can the 21,000 additional people on the benefit find jobs when the employment rate is unchanged and job ads have slumped by 32 percent, leaving Kiwis no other choice than to look overseas?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On this side of the House, we want to rebuild this economy so that we can see businesses creating more jobs so New Zealanders have better options. The sad fact of the matter is this: we inherited a grossly damaged economy which had sustained out-of-control inflation for three years, causing interest rates to rise very, very high. That previous Government perpetuated that with its own wasteful spending, and now we are cleaning up the mess.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it her priority to support front-line social workers who have lost their jobs because of funding cuts to services and programmes like Tākai that have had to shut after 20 years of serving the community?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, if the member has a specific question, specific to contracts provided by a particular agency, I suggest she put those questions to the relevant Minister, and I know that if the Minister for social development were to be answering this question, she would say that she expects her agency to provide sufficient supports to all New Zealanders in receipt of a benefit to ensure they have the maximum opportunity to find work and get work.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What does she say to nursing students like Ana, who have asked, “What is the point of me completing this degree when I’m so uncertain whether I will get a job?”, and can she assure Ana that she will have a job in the public healthcare system when she graduates this year?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: My message to Ana is this: thank you for taking on the incredibly important job of nursing New Zealanders. Taking the chance to learn those skills and learn that capability is a great one because your skills will be needed in the future for New Zealand, and my encouragement to you is not only work hard and make sure you complete that qualification but also be wary of those politicians who like to claim they’re on your side and then ruin the economy so that, actually, there are fewer opportunities in it.

Question No. 5—Education

5. to the Minister of Education: What evidence has she seen to support her recent announcement on Make it Count, an action plan to transform maths education in New Zealand?

As we heard in the House yesterday, the Curriculum Insights and Progress Study showed that only 22 percent of learners at year 8 were at curriculum for mathematics. We took immediate action to accelerate our Make it Count action plan to introduce structured mathematics. A structured maths approach is underpinned by the science of learning and decades of cognitive research which show that explicit teaching, when supported by a knowledge-rich, year-by-year curriculum that develops mastery, supported by high-quality instructional resources, lifts student achievement. This action plan is just another step towards closing the equity gap, giving our children every opportunity to succeed in turning round these dismal results.

Grant McCallum: What other evidence has she seen to support this announcement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Research from the National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics in the UK highlights the importance of enabling a coherent learning progression though the curriculum. That is why our Government is rolling out a knowledge-rich, year-by-year curriculum grounded in the science of learning, and bringing it forward by a year. The Education Review Office surveyed new primary teachers in 2023, finding that nearly a quarter felt unprepared in their maths content knowledge when they first started in their role. That’s why, as part of this action plan, we’re prioritising maths when it comes to professional learning and development, with $20 million of funding being made available, alongside raising the level of maths for entry into initial teacher education to level 2 NCEA mathematics and working with the Teaching Council to boost the amount of mathematics training happening at initial teacher education. Teachers deserve our support and we’re going to deliver it.

Grant McCallum: What feedback has she received from principals on her announcement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I have received really positive feedback. One principal wrote to me saying, “Thank you, I am excited at the idea of a structured maths programme. After 13 years of principalship and several years with primary teachers, this is fabulous news. Thank you. I am excited as a principal and look forward to supporting and embedding the structured maths programme at our school.”, and another wrote: “Excellent news, Erica, and well done. We have been aware of this decline for years, so it’s great we’re putting in place clear expectations for achievement and resources to support, as well as addressing standards for teacher entry.” I am hugely grateful to all of those who have shared their thoughts.

Grant McCallum: What feedback has she received from teachers on her announcement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Teachers have written to me as well, and one said, “As a teacher, I say thank you to Erica Stanford and the New Zealand National Party for caring and acting in the best interests of students, teachers, and society. These changes are needed.” Another wrote, “As a secondary school maths teacher, this is the best news. Thank you, you are addressing that which should have been addressed.” My message to parents is clear: we are a Government who is putting achievement back at the heart of the education system, and, as the Prime Minister said, we are moving heaven and earth to make sure your children experience success in mathematics.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

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

Yes, and especially our action to lift maths achievement among young people—Māori and non-Māori. It’s absolutely appalling that just 12 percent of Māori heading off to high school are at curriculum for mathematics, and if we’re serious about achievement and opportunity, then we actually have to turn that around. So we have a plan and that means more resources for every child—Māori and non-Māori—in every classroom in New Zealand, and since we’ve released that plan, I have to say to that member we haven’t heard anything from Te Pāti Māori on student achievement—no, nothing to say about Māori achievement, nothing to say about our plan, and nothing to say about turning the lives around of our young people.

SPEAKER: That’s politically interesting, but not particularly helpful for the order of the House.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: In light of comments made by John Key at the National Party conference that “Māori are the indigenous population of New Zealand and Treaty partners, so you have to treat them with respect.”, does he believe that his Government is treating Māori with respect?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: John Key is a private citizen and a former Prime Minister and he’s entitled to his own views, but in this case I agree with him.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What actions will he take to uphold New Zealand’s legal obligations as ruled by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to hold Israel accountable for their illegal occupation of Palestinian lands and their war crimes against Palestinian people?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as that member will well know, we have said for many years that those occupations are illegal. The ICJ has actually confirmed New Zealand’s longstanding position, so we support that.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Is his Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage’s erasure of te reo Māori greetings from official Matariki invitations an example of his Government’s treating Māori with respect?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said before, we value te reo. We should be comfortable in this country speaking te reo and English. In this case, he was addressing a letter to a foreign Minister and felt it was best delivered in English.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: If te reo Māori is good enough for King Charles to use in his official Matariki greetings, why is it not good enough for the New Zealand Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I’d just say the Minister made a decision to say that he wanted the communication to be in English so that the Australian Minister could understand it.

Question No. 7—Arts, Culture and Heritage

7. to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: Does the Minister think it’s appropriate that te reo Māori be used in an invitation for Matariki, a distinct holiday to celebrate the Māori New Year; if not, why not?

Yes, which is why the official invitation to Matariki contained te reo Māori—as I have here—entitled “Mānawa maiea te Mātahi o te Tau” [“Arise the New Year”], and he would know this if he’d checked with his leader, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, who received one of the invitations and declined to come.

Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait for the quiet. OK.

Hon Willie Jackson: The Minister knows what I’m referring to is his letter to his counterpart yesterday, and I want to ask the question: what is the big problem with saying “tēnā koe”, which means “hello”, in his official invitation?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I was writing to a Minister from Australia and I was encouraged to sign it off with “Nāku noa, nā” [“Humbly yours, from”], and I thought “Yours sincerely” would be more easily understood by the Australian.

Hon Willie Jackson: Is the Minister aware of a recent statement from the Hon Tony Burke, his Australian counterpart and the person the invitation was for, stating that support for First Nations’ culture, stories, and languages is crucial, and, if so, why did he jump to the conclusion yesterday, saying, “I didn’t think he needed a lot of … reo in his invitation, because he’s an Australian.”?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, I wasn’t aware of that quote, and I must say I’m amazed that that member thinks that this is a matter that deserves an urgent debate in the House and that my writing to an Australian Minister is a matter of such interest.

Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. He hasn’t—

SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon Willie Jackson.

Hon Willie Jackson: —even come anywhere near—

SPEAKER: No, no, hang on—wait, wait. Just let me call you, then, so the whole—

Hon Willie Jackson: Sorry, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: —House can hear you. The Hon Willie Jackson.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister hasn’t come anywhere near to addressing the question. I’m asking the Minister: is he aware of the Hon Tony Burke’s support for indigenous languages and the statements he’s made around supporting First Nations’ culture and languages, and he’s made it very clear that that’s crucial. He hasn’t addressed the question at all.

SPEAKER: Well, he did start his answer with “No, I wasn’t aware of that statement.”, which kind of covers it. But before you took the point of order, I was going to suggest to the Minister that he didn’t use decisions made by the Chair in answer to his question.

Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker, point of order. Can I table a press release from the Minister, and it’s a release that talks about putting words into action—

SPEAKER: Well, hang on a moment.

Hon Willie Jackson: —to safeguard—

SPEAKER: Wait on.

Hon Willie Jackson: —indigenous languages. Can I seek leave to table it?

SPEAKER: Whose press release is it?

Hon Willie Jackson: Tony Burke, the Australian Minister.

SPEAKER: But it’s pretty freely available, though, isn’t it?

Hon Willie Jackson: It’s available, but it hasn’t been very available in New Zealand. But I seek leave to submit it.

SPEAKER: Is the member now a distributor for an Australian newspaper, or is it genuinely something that most members of the House would not have access to?

Hon Member: It wouldn’t have been.

Hon Willie Jackson: Yeah, it hasn’t really been available freely, but I’m—

SPEAKER: I’ll put the leave. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? No. The member can table it.

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

Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker, will—

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Point of order—

SPEAKER: Point of order—oh, hang on. He’s still on a point of order.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, I think he’d finished, didn’t he?

SPEAKER: No, I decide whether he is or not. He is.

Hon Willie Jackson: I’ve got another question, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Oh, OK. In that case, point of order.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the official invitation to Matariki, which was sent to the Leader of the Opposition and was declined.

SPEAKER: I presume that’s not widely available, either.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: It was only sent to the people who were invited, and so I’m tabling it for the general public so that they can see it’s in both languages.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Any objection? There appears to be none.

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

Hon Willie Jackson: Will the Minister now do the consistent thing and advise the King of England and the King of New Zealand, His Majesty King Charles, to remove te reo Māori greetings from his Matariki message; if not, why not?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, I wouldn’t be making any such instructions to the King of New Zealand.

Hon Tama Potaka: Talofa lava. Does the Minister consider that the recent Budget announcements regarding nearly $50 million—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute—just a moment. [Interruption] Just a moment. We’ll hear the question in silence.

Hon Tama Potaka: Ngā mihi, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister consider that the recent Budget announcements regarding nearly $50 million of ongoing support for Te Matatini and $142 million of support for Māori language entities represent and demonstrate a strong level of support by this Government for te reo Māori?

SPEAKER: The Hon Paul Goldsmith—and without commentary.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, I would.

Hon Willie Jackson: Will the Minister be advising the Minister for Sport and Recreation to write to the New Zealand Olympic team and to our Olympic medallist Eliza McCartney to stop referring to New Zealand as Aotearoa, and, if not, why not?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I’m sure that Minister can handle his arrangements perfectly well.

Question No. 8—Justice

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

The Government is taking action to reduce harm caused by gangs by progressing legislation that will reduce the ability of gangs to operate and cause fear, intimidation, and disruption to the public. The Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill, which inched closer to its third reading last night, is a significant step in making our communities safer. Gangs peddle misery and cause fear and intimidation, and this Government is taking the safety of the public seriously.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What examples, if any, has he heard of the fear, intimidation, and disruption that gangs cause in our communities?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I heard an example from a member of Parliament from the Greens last night saying, “we don’t really wear red in Tokoroa, and that’s just the way things are.”, and the only reason why people wouldn’t wear a particular colour in a particular place is because of fear of the consequences—ultimately, fear of violence. No New Zealanders should live in fear, and that’s why this Government is intending to ban the display of gang insignia and is passing this piece of legislation.

SPEAKER: Yeah, keep the answers to answers, and not reference to past debating points.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What other examples has the Minister heard of the fear, the intimidation, and disruption that gangs cause in our communities?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I heard another example from another member of Parliament, also from the Greens, last night. It said, “I know, just like in Tokoroa, don’t wear red. Don’t wear red in Whangārei”, and, like I said before, no New Zealanders should be living in fear. The Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill will provide extra tools for the police to deal effectively with gangs.

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

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, because gang membership increased by 51 percent in the previous six years and, at the same time, violent crime in our communities had gone up by 33 percent. New Zealanders should be able to go about their normal lives without fear of being intimidated or preyed upon by organised crime. If that means banning the presence of gangs and gang patches in public, this Government is quite happy to justify that so people can expect to go about their lives in safety.

Question No. 9—Health

9. to the Minister of Health: Is it correct that he was advised of Health New Zealand’s plan to block early access to the cancer drug Keytruda on Friday, 2 August, and that he did not take action to address this issue until after it was made public?

on behalf of the Minister of Health: To the first part, yes. To the second part, first thing on Monday morning, the Minister spoke with health officials regarding this issue. I’m pleased to see that Health New Zealand has taken a pragmatic approach informed by clinical advice to deliver these treatments, thanks to the Government’s transformative investment to deliver up to 26 cancer treatments.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Well, how much advice does he need in order to recognise that blocking early access to a life-saving cancer drug is a bad idea?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: On behalf of the Minister, these decisions are clinical decisions made by Health New Zealand, and he has faith in Health New Zealand to come up with pragmatic solutions based upon clear clinical advice.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that Health New Zealand officials had the impression that the delay in implementation of the Government’s flagship health policy was acceptable because he failed to set clear expectations on delivery?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: On behalf of the Minister, no.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that documents released under the Official Information Act show he did not progress work on his original promise to fund cancer medicines to a Cabinet paper until public backlash against the Budget, and don’t New Zealanders deserve a Minister that will fight for better healthcare for them?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: In answer to the second part of the question, they deserve a Minister that will fight for better health outcomes, and this Minister is fighting for better health outcomes by delivering a transformative investment in cancer treatments for New Zealanders.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Can he confirm he is still the Minister of Health, or has the Prime Minister’s office decided to try out some talented associates for the role?

SPEAKER: You need not answer that question.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Oh, come on, let me.

SPEAKER: OK—OK, answer it.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: We have—on behalf of the Minister—a very competent associate health Minister who is actively supporting the Minister in his role.

Question No. 10—Internal Affairs

10. to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent announcements has she made about passports?

I was pleased to announce yesterday that wait times for New Zealand passports have halved, and New Zealanders should now allow up to five weeks for a standard New Zealand passport, down from a peak of 10 weeks. I’ve been advised that many passports are being issued faster than this time frame as well. The recent delay in passport wait times was caused by a software upgrade in March. Since then, the department and I have been focused on reducing passport processing times as a top priority. Getting passport wait times down to the standard two weeks continues to be a priority for me. I want to provide Kiwi families and businesses with certainty on how long it will take to receive their passport.

SPEAKER: I’d just note that the Minister’s microphone is not picking up as audibly as it should, so if there’s someone in the box who can look at that—and maybe she can just stand a little closer to it.

Todd Stephenson: What benefits have New Zealanders received from the upgrade to the passport system?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The new system allows families applying as a group to use one online form, rather than multiple paper ones. Kiwi families are making good use of this feature, as 91 percent of passports last month were applied for online and 32 percent of these were group applications. The upgrade also makes it easier to report a lost or stolen passport, and allows referees to verify an applicant’s identity online, rather than through a phone call. This is the largest upgrade to the passport system in over a decade.

Todd Stephenson: How can New Zealanders ensure they get their passports in time for their overseas trips?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The top action New Zealanders can take to ensure they get their passport on time is to apply as soon as they start planning an overseas trip and, secondly, it’s to make sure that the photo they send through is of a good quality and meets the requirements. For context, 11,598 photos were rejected by the Passport Office in February alone this year, which delays the application process. There is an online photo checker available to use on the passport website, and, remember, selfies are not accepted.

Question No. 11—Children

11. to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by the Government’s Budget description of the Oranga Tamariki Contracting Service Costs savings initiative that “This initiative improves the efficiency of service delivery, with no reduction in frontline services”; if so, how is Oranga Tamariki ensuring no reduction in frontline service provision?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes, and in answer to the second part of the question, that savings initiative is money Oranga Tamariki expects will be returned where a provider has been funded and services have not been delivered. Previously, organisations were allowed to sit on funding, even if they weren’t using it. Now, where services and outcomes are not delivered, Oranga Tamariki will be asking for the money back. I think taxpayers would be alarmed to learn that this was not happening in the past. In terms of front-line service provision, what is happening is where contracts are being changed, it is because this Government is making sure that funding is delivering outcomes for children and young people and that taxpayers are getting value for money. Where organisations have not delivered on the full value of their contracts last year, Oranga Tamariki will be funding them this year based on that prior delivery. Going forward, we will be funding these organisations that are delivering outcomes for children, and not funding those who don’t.

Kahurangi Carter: How does she reconcile this commitment to no reduction in front-line services with Family Start losing 40 percent of their front-line staff due to their funding being cut by $14 million per year, compromising their ability to support at-risk infants in Nelson?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I would like to refer to a media release released this morning by Oranga Tamariki, speaking to specifically this provider. For example, He Matapuna Ora, the Family Start provider in Nelson, stated they are in the top four performing Family Start providers in the country. Based on their own quarterly reports and our internal review of all Family Start contracts between 2022 and January 2024, they achieved, on average, 80 percent of the whānau volumes, lower numbers of home visits than were expected, and based on this information, we have reduced their fulltime-equivalents (FTEs) from 12.75 to 10. At one point, He Matapuna Ora reported in previous financial years that they had had 17 FTEs, despite being contracted for 12.75.

Kahurangi Carter: Supplementary—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hold on—hold on a minute. OK.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she agree with Family Start Nelson manager Rebecca Ravenscroft, who said, “our whānau workers are frontline workers, they are in the homes of these whānau and whenever they visit they have to sight the baby so they are definitely frontline workers”, and, if not, what is the Minister’s definition of front-line services?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I’ll refer to the previous answer where I stated that this organisation, in particular, only met 80 percent of the whānau volumes and lower numbers of visits than were expected. So that money that was not delivered on will be redirected to a front-line service that can deliver that.

Kahurangi Carter: Does cutting funding for Family Start Nelson meet her expectations for Oranga Tamariki’s savings initiative, when evaluation found that their programme reduced overall post-neonatal mortality in the first year of life by 42 percent, and, if not, why is Family Start facing these cuts?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I think I’ve actually answered part of that in my previous answers, but what I would say is it does meet my expectation if money cannot sit in these organisations’ bank accounts that’s not being spent when it could be redirected to organisations that could be delivering a service for our young people.

Kahurangi Carter: Will she recommit, as the Government did in the Budget, to there being no reduction in front-line services because of the $120 million of cuts to Oranga Tamariki - contracted services, and, if so, how will Oranga Tamariki fill the gaps already created by these cuts?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Overall, the Government and Oranga Tamariki are not reducing front-line services. Savings coming from getting money back where it hasn’t been used are redirected to other front-line services. Separate to this, what we are doing, unlike previously, is reviewing contracts and making sure we are getting what we pay for. Changes have been made based on previous utilisation and delivery, and where demands and needs have changed in particular regions, Oranga Tamariki has also looked at where there is duplication of services in the same areas. This means some providers will see a decrease in funding and others will see an increase. Funding does not equal delivery. As we saw under previous years, you can throw more and more money at a problem, but unless you demand results, things can get worse.

Question No. 12—Tertiary Education and Skills

12. to the Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills: Meitaki, Mr Speaker. Kia orana koutou katoatoa. Does she stand by her statement that “the previous government’s Te Pūkenga mega-merger has been nothing but an abject disaster”; if so, why?

Yes, and to name a few reasons why, in 2023 all previous Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand (ITPs) individual business units recorded deficits, with at least three recording deficits in excess of $20 million and all but two previous ITP individual business units forecasting deficits in 2025. Further, international student numbers recovery for Te Pūkenga is behind universities, is behind schools, and is behind language schools. Overseas, no one knows what Te Pūkenga is. Further, Te Pūkenga has overseen a 9 percent decline in domestic enrolments. Polytechnics are unable to make decisions about their domestic and international fees. ITPs have been unable to make decisions that meet regional needs of their communities.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why, then, in the regulatory impact statement prepared by her own officials, does the Minister’s preferred option rank as “worse” than the status quo when it comes to system sustainability and to learner and employer needs?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: There is a consultation document out at the moment for the sector to give their thoughts on. I have taken a range of advice and, as well, I have relied on the over 30 years that I’ve spent in the sector, and so options are there for the sector to submit on.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why, in the regulatory impact statement prepared by her own officials, does the Minister’s preferred option rank as “much worse” than the status quo when it comes to implementation cost and complexity, and ranks her preferred option overall as “worse” than the status quo?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: This Government is very focused on ensuring that all regions have access to vocational education and training. We understand that it is a pathway to employment for individuals such as school leavers and those returning to the workforce. It is absolutely critical that options that we look at ensure that regional delivery can occur. The proposal that is out for consultation enables the Open Polytechnic to support those smaller regional polytechnics to be able to maintain that level of provision.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why is she ignoring the advice of her seven specialist advisers, who—at a cost of $2,000 a day each—told her to keep the Te Pūkenga model with some regional groupings?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, I would note that they were not my specialist advisers. They were Te Pūkenga’s specialist advisers, and they gave a range of options, of which the option that we are consulting on was one. [Interruption]

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Isn’t it true—

SPEAKER: Just wait—just wait for a minute till the House resumes a bit of silence for the question.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Isn’t it true that the real, abject failure here is a Minister who is so set on protecting her own pet institution that she just doesn’t give a damn about the needs of the rest of the country?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. You’d think somebody with a modicum of education would not begin by “Isn’t it true”, but then that soon was compounded by her outrageous sort of venting of her dislike for the Minister and not knowing her subject at the same time.

SPEAKER: I’d tend to agree with the member. There is one question more. You can have that question again if you can ask in a different way and as something that goes to the heart of the Minister’s portfolio responsibilities.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why did she tell Radio New Zealand—RNZ—that she had proactively released the advice she received from her seven specialist advisers when she has done no such thing, and when will she release the advice?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I noted that it would be proactively released. I wasn’t sure if it had been or not, and I understand that it’s due to be proactively released in the next week. I would note, again, that they were not my specialist advisers, but I would also note that under a new chief executive at Te Pūkenga, who has experience in and understanding of the sector; a new chair; and a clear set of expectations from this Minister, Te Pūkenga is at last undertaking the cost-out work and is forecasting a year-to-date surplus for the six months to 30 June 2024 of $28.5 million.

SPEAKER: Yeah, very good—that brings oral questions to a close. We’ll take 30 seconds while members swiftly leave the House without conversations on the way.