Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen about tax relief for New Zealanders?

This morning, I saw a report that tax relief is finally arriving for hard-working New Zealanders, who’ve waited 14 long years. The good news is that tax relief arrives today. The report goes on to say, “Overall, 83 percent of Kiwis—94 percent of households—will benefit from the tax package”, which comes into effect today. The report is titled “Promised Cost of Living Relief is Here”, and it came from the Minister of Finance’s office this morning. On this side of the House, we’re very pleased to be making sure Kiwi workers can keep more of what they earn.

Katie Nimon: What other reports has the Minister seen about tax relief?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’ve seen another report this morning which outlines that voters in Northland and Christchurch are pleased to be pocketing a bit more of their hard-earned cash through tax relief. The Radio New Zealand report quotes a woman as saying, “Every little bit helps.”, and another woman saying, “I think anything that puts more money into New Zealand families’ pockets is a good thing.” It goes on to quote a man as saying, “I see it was targeted at the right people.” These people are right. Responsibly funded tax relief is needed, and it is targeted at low and middle income workers.

Katie Nimon: Has the Minister seen further support of reports about tax relief?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes. I’ve seen another report this morning from a commentator talking about tax, who said, “Bracket adjustment is a legitimate thing to do, and I think it’s a sensible thing to do.”—a very wise and sensible comment, a view that I think the House would do well to listen to. That supportive comment was made this morning on Breakfast TV by none other than the Leader of the Opposition, Chris Hipkins.

Katie Nimon: Has the Minister received any fresh updates on how much interest there is from hard-working New Zealanders in tax relief?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, indeed, I have. More good news. I received an update this morning from the Treasury, which shows the tax calculator has hit a new high of 591,414 visits, as Kiwis find out how much they will be getting in long-overdue tax relief. The numbers are going up every minute. New Zealanders are clearly very interested in tax relief, which is very unsurprising given they haven’t seen it for 14 long years. We are delivering on what we promised as part of this coalition Government.

Question No. 2 to Minister

I would just remind members that yesterday, I reinforced with whips and others who were at the Business Committee that the display of party logos in the House in any form is not a permitted activity and hasn’t been for some time. There are people displaying party logos at the moment. My advice is that they should remove those logos, in any form that they might have them, in order that I don’t have to take stronger action to raise the standards that so many in this House want to see raised. Question No. 2, in the name of Todd Stephenson.

Thank you, Mr Speaker—

Good, and I’ll stop him right there. You can go ahead with your question when you’ve got rid of the logo.

TODD STEPHENSON: Well, Mr Speaker, a point of order, then.

SPEAKER: It’s not a point of order; I’m ruling.

TODD STEPHENSON: We’ll, I would just refer you to a ruling Speaker Mallard made in relation to pins in the House.

SPEAKER: That’s good. I’ve made a ruling, a new one, yesterday—nothing. So if you want to deliver your question to the House, remove the pin.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Mallard clearly ruled that pins were exempt from that ruling in 2018. If you are seriously saying that you’re not going to let people ask and answer questions in this House because they’re wearing a pin—as they’ve been allowed to for year after year—I think more and more people are going to ask what your priorities actually are.

They may well ask all sorts of question about priorities. All I’m saying is that I’ve been put under the pump today, being told that I need to maintain standards here in the House. One of them is the ruling that I made yesterday that we don’t wear party logos of any type in the House. So there’s an obvious next step in this. I don’t want to take it, but that’s up to the members.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you seriously saying that under Standing Order 90(1), you are going to kick a member out of the House for being highly disorderly for wearing a lapel pin?

No, it would be for challenging the Chair or the Speaker, which is quite a different matter, as has been pointed out by others in the House already today. So, look, if the member thinks the wearing of his pin is more important than the delivery of his question, that’s his choice, but it’s the way things are going to be. So we’ll move on to question No. 3, in the name of the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Todd Stephenson: No, sir—sorry, sir. I’ve taken my pin off.

SPEAKER: Well, you’re a bit slow.

Todd Stephenson: No, you didn’t call me.

SPEAKER: Well, I didn’t—listen, don’t make things worse. So in my extreme good nature, I’ll allow you to ask the question, but I notice that others in your party are not following your example and I would suggest that they should start. And if they don’t, well, then, I’ve got to go back to where I was before—question No. 3.

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 our action to deliver tax relief starting today. Governments of every stripe have delivered tax relief, going back many, many years—National Governments and Labour Governments. Why? Well, I think the member summed it up perfectly this morning, when he actually said, “Bracket adjustment is a legitimate thing to do and I think it’s a sensible thing to do.” I’d just say, if he keeps saying sensible things like that, he could join the National Party and finally let Kieran McAnulty have his time in the sun! I’m proud that, after 14 years, this Government has done this sensible thing, the practical thing, the common-sense thing, and actually delivered tax relief to working New Zealanders—with the cost of living—starting today.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did his Government remove the financial sustainability priority in the Government’s health policy statement?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, I read that from the member. I saw he had a go at it this morning. I’d just say to him that the letter of expectation is incredibly clear about financial performance, as is also the Government policy statement. I would just say to him that, I think, if you’re just looking at Politico, that’s probably not the right way to go about it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who advised him and Shane Reti that Health New Zealand moving into deficit in April this year was due to “back-office bloat” when the chief executive of Health New Zealand said that it was a result of hiring more nurses?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just say, it is ironic—it is ironic—after six years, that member has the audacity to ask about a question about the healthcare system that he presided over and ran into the ground. So I want to be really clear: there are way too many layers of management, there are 2,500 management back-office function people that are there, and there’s a big division between the front line and the decision makers. Again, there has been financial unreliability in the reporting for some time; we are now fixing that. We’re putting a commissioner in and putting the controls in place that that member didn’t do.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister who advised him of that. He hasn’t addressed that. He spent a lot of time attacking the last Government. I asked him who advised him.

SPEAKER: Well, with all due respect, you took the point of order before he actually had concluded. Even though it was a lengthy answer, I think we’ll give the Prime Minister another shot.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: All I’d just say to that member, as I’ve said publicly, Health New Zealand’s problems have been financial unreliability and poor performance and poor financial reporting for some time. It has been unreliable and inconsistent. It was in March that we started to understand there was a rising deficit, and, as a result, we took action with the commissioner last week.

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

SPEAKER: He did say it was in March when he took advice.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: That’s interesting, but from who?

SPEAKER: Well, that’s not necessarily what you can extract; it’s like asking for a yes or no.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: All right, then. Well, in light of his last answer, why did he say that he first became aware of financial problems at Health New Zealand in October 2023, when his health Minister said that he first became aware five months later, in March 2024, a claim that he has now just repeated?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I have said to the member, the financial performance and monitoring has been incredibly poor and unreliable. We had a letter, which we released, in the middle of March, saying that they were on track for delivering a surplus. That very quickly deteriorated into a deficit between that period and the appointment of a commissioner. You would remember that there was an annual report before this Government came to power, in October, saying that there was a potential deficit in health. We’ve had a surplus, a deficit, a surplus, a deficit. What we’ve got is poor financial reporting. Why is that? It’s because the previous Government did not actually merge into one entity the 21 district health boards, and just whacked 2,500 people over the top of it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How does he reconcile that statement that he just made, with the statement Shane Reti made yesterday: “We were getting monthly … and quarterly reports from Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health … And … they were predicting they were on task for the savings target.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because they were. If you look at the letter that the Minister of Finance released, as of, I think, 20 March or somewhere around that window of time, they were forecasting a slightly smaller surplus, but then they projected a deficit going forward, in one month. That speaks to the financial performance, the unreliability of the data, and the poor controls in place. It’s because the previous administration had a botched restructure, didn’t know how to run anything—we saw it with Te Pūkenga, we’ve seen it now with Health New Zealand, we’ve seen it with disability services. The previous Government didn’t know how to run things; we do know how to run things. We’re sorting it out.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why has the Government frozen relocation costs for overseas doctors, driving many to abandon their job applications, when we’ve got understaffed hospitals, like Dargaville, who can’t find doctors at all?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, there is no hiring freeze. As that member well knows—and it is not new and I acknowledge that there are challenges with recruiting health workforce in rural settings, but that is a function of a botched health merger We are doing everything we can to home-grow doctors as well as open up our immigration settings to do so. But I just remember when that member was in Government, thinking about Rāwene Hospital, which had the same problem about finding rural workforce. That is work that we’re still working hard on.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. As with many of his answers, almost the entirety of the Prime Minister’s answer has been about things that he alleges happened under the last Government. The freeze on relocation costs is something that has recently been imposed under his Government, and I asked him why they did that. I didn’t ask him about the previous Government’s recruitment efforts; I asked him about his Government’s recruitment efforts.

SPEAKER: I know, but it might be perfectly reasonable, in explaining why, to go into reasons that would go back in time, and the Standing Orders do allow that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Yeah, but he didn’t.

SPEAKER: Well, once again, you were on your feet pretty quickly. He was still talking at the time that you called your point of order. Would the Prime Minister like to add to that answer?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said, there is no hiring freeze.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn’t ask the Prime Minister whether there was a hiring freeze, even though there are reports that there is, but I asked him why Health New Zealand has frozen relocation costs for overseas doctors. It was a pretty straight question.

SPEAKER: Well, then, ask it again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Very good. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why has Health New Zealand frozen relocation costs for overseas doctors, driving many to abandon job applications, when we’ve got understaffed hospitals, like Dargaville, that can’t find a doctor at all?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I have said to that member, we have worked and will continue to work on making sure we get workforce into the New Zealand healthcare system. We are growing our home-grown doctors. We have got open immigration settings to bring doctors from overseas here. We have made good progress. There are 2,900 extra nurses in the system than there were 12 months ago. We know it’s challenging getting workforce into rural settings, but we’ll continue to work hard at it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How many doctors’ salaries could the Government fund for the over $200 million in tax breaks they have just given to tobacco companies?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I would just say that it is very rich from that member who actually created a situation and is now criticising us for trying to solve the problem. We have put a record $16.7 billion into the healthcare system—much more than the previous administration was planning in your fiscal track documents at the election.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

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

Yes, and especially this Government’s action to abolish the broken lending regulations associated with the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA). We know that those regulations have been an absolute nightmare for Kiwis having to explain to their bank why they’re subscribed to Netflix or justifying how much money they’re spending on cat food. Our Government is serious about getting rid of the jungle of red tape, so good news: from today, 11 pages have been shredded in regulations around the CCCFA. It means people get access to liquidity, and will also protect on predatory lending.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he agree with the Minister for Regulation that the Government’s job is to protect property rights?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The Government’s job is definitely to protect property rights and it is also to make sure we improve outcomes for Māori, non-Māori, and every New Zealander.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he agree that article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi guarantees Māori full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of their lands, estates, forests, forestries, and other properties so long as they wish to retain them?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

Rawiri Waititi: Why, then, is he amending the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act to make it possible for the courts to recognise Māori rights over their foreshore and seabed as guaranteed under Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what we are doing here, as we have explained, is we’re taking—

Rawiri Waititi: Yes, you’re taking all right!

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, no, excuse me, would you like to hear the answer? I’ve been respectful to you; I expect respect the other way. So what I’d just say to you is we are passing an amendment to section 58. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just quiet for a minute. Quieten down. It’s a serious matter so we’ll just hear the answer in silence.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Thank you. Look, the Government’s amending the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act to clarify the test for customary marine title. We are very proud of the legislation that—a National-led Government passed in 2011—actually legitimately recognises Māori customary title and also balances the legitimate use of coastal areas for all New Zealanders. Unfortunately, under the court action, that threshold has been lowered. All we are doing is restoring it back to what was intended by this Parliament in 2011.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister, does he agree with that brilliant legal scholar Sir Apirana Ngata’s version of the Treaty—

Rawiri Waititi: He wasn’t here when the foreshore and seabed was taken.

SPEAKER: Hang on, just—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When I’m speaking you keep quiet, all right?

Rawiri Waititi: Or what?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Or what? Or you’ll be gone in five minutes, that’s what!

SPEAKER: Sorry, we’re not having this. Question time is a question and answer; it’s not a debate time. So the Rt Hon Winston Peters will start his question again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’m asking the Prime Minister, does he agree with that brilliant legal and Māori scholar Sir Apirana Ngata’s version of article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi or the Te Pāti Māori radicals’ version of article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I would say is we are making sure that we get the balance right by restoring the intention of the legislation that was passed in 2011, which recognises Māori customary rights and also protects the legitimate rights of all New Zealanders. That is what is happening here. The courts have lowered the threshold and we are just restoring it to what it once was.

Rawiri Waititi: By over-ruling the Court of Appeal judgment that “Far from recognising and promoting customary interests, [the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act] would in many cases extinguish those interests.”, is this Government seeking to extinguish Māori rights and interests over our foreshore and seabed?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, what we are doing is making sure that we ensure that the legislation that Parliament passed that balanced, quite rightly, the customary rights of Māori and recognised those appropriately, and also protected legitimate interests of all New Zealanders, is actually the legislation that’s in operation.

Rawiri Waititi: By over-ruling the Court of Appeal judgment that “Te Tiriti had been breached by Crown failures to protect customary rights and interests, [and] MACA would entrench and perpetuate those breaches,” is his Government seeking to entrench the theft of our foreshore and seabed?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, absolutely not. The Court of Appeal ruling changed the nature of the test and it materially reduced the threshold. What we are doing is making sure that we can recognise Māori customary rights and also protect legitimate rights of all New Zealanders. This legislation, as it was in 2011, I would be very proud of because it was a National-led Government that put it in place and it struck a balance and we should be proud about it. We’re just taking it back to that interpretation.

Rawiri Waititi: If no one owns the foreshore and seabed, what gives the Government the right to consent to and profit from coastal marine farms, seabed mining, and deep-sea oil drilling?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just say to that member, what we are making sure is that we are balancing economic, cultural, and environmental interests across New Zealand. We know that we need to grow our economy, we know that we need to build more renewable electricity and energy, and that’s why we’re wanting to pass fast-track legislation. I’d love you to support it.

Rawiri Waititi: Is he afraid that iwi and hapū holding customary title over the foreshore and seabed would be a barrier to his Government’s seabed mining and oil drilling agenda?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I’d just say to the member, those that have already settled under the current legislation, their rights are protected. But going forward, we are rebalancing and going back to the original intention of Parliament with the original Act. It recognises customary title for Māori and it also protects legitimate interests of all New Zealanders.

Darleen Tana: What is his response to the more than 150 signatories of the open letter by ActionStation Aotearoa to “stop the Treaty Principles Bill and ensure it is withdrawn prior to the select committee process”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think there has been a lot of misunderstandings. Let me be clear, we are not touching the Treaty. The Government has no plans, has never had any plans, to rewrite the Treaty of Waitangi. We’re going to continue to honour the Treaty and honour all Treaty settlements.

Darleen Tana: What does he say to the statement in the open letter by ActionStation Aotearoa that the proposed Treaty principles bill, “misrepresents the collective guarantee of Māori tino rangatiratanga into something it is not (and never could be) by erasing the inherent rights that Te Tiriti affirms and protects”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said to the member—I don’t know how to be any clearer—we’re not touching the Treaty of Waitangi. We respect and honour it and that’s what we’ll continue to do.

Hon Chris Bishop: Is the Prime Minister surprised that Te Pāti Māori now appears to be arguing for a radically different position from that advanced through the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act in 2011, which they had a hand in devising and passing?

SPEAKER: Well, he may be surprised, but it’s not something he’s got responsibility for. We move now to question number—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. This is in no way challenging your potential ruling, but if somebody’s been away from this House for 110 days, how did they get back into the cycle of being entitled to a question that passed, in the way that Darleen Tana just did?

SPEAKER: Well, that is the way in which Parliament operates. There’s nothing unusual here. There is a—[Interruption] Sorry, there is a process and there is a roster—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I know the process.

SPEAKER: Yeah, so, well, look, if the member goes back and has a talk to his whip, his whip will show him the roster and the roster will indicate that Darleen Tana has one supplementary on two days of a week and can choose to use both those supplementaries on one day, as anybody else can as well. Thank you—

Hon Member: Aw, fragile—fragile.

SPEAKER: Hang on—enough.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, without challenging your ruling, it is a bit odd that Ms Tana has been, up until, I don’t know, 10 days or so ago, a member of the Green Party and, therefore, the Greens have been using her questions, essentially her proportionate questions. It is a bit odd that very soon after her expulsion she’s entitled to two supplementary questions almost immediately. I think it does strike many of us as slightly strange.

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll tell you what strikes me as strange: it strikes me as particularly peculiar and very odd that the Leader of the House, who is a major player in the Business Committee, does not remember that the Business Committee approved the roster that gives her these questions.

Question No. 5—Prime Minister

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

Yes, and especially our efforts to abolish the Auckland regional fuel tax. I was so pleased to see reporting yesterday confirming that the Auckland regional fuel tax has been fully passed on to motorists. The previous Government didn’t care about working New Zealanders, frankly, who were trying to drive to school or drop their kids off to school. And that’s why they were so happy to soak them up with taxes to pay for speed bumps and cycleways. We axed the tax. We’re getting Government focused and back on the basics.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his joint statement with the Prime Ministers of Australia and Canada on 26 July that the protection of Palestinian civilians is paramount and a requirement under international humanitarian law, and, if so, what exactly is Aotearoa New Zealand under his Government actually doing to ensure this protection?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I do stand by those statements and I’m proud of the work that we’ve done with the two Prime Ministers to generate now what is three joint statements. What we have been doing is we’ve been calling for a ceasefire since this conflict started. We’re asking for Hamas to release the hostages; we definitely need to see that. We’re asking Israel to meet all of its obligations. We’ve actually supported the UN remit to actually broaden the participation of Palestine within the UN. We’ve put $17 million of humanitarian aid in, and we continue to call for the two-State solution.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he think that the genocide convention is a crucial instrument for the prevention and punishment of genocide, and, if so, why has New Zealand, under his Government, neglected to join South Africa’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) case against Israel despite how he joined Ukraine’s case against Russia in 2022?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, they’re different situations. What I’d say to you is—

Chlöe Swarbrick: How?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’d say to you is they’re different situations and we respect the ICJ rulings and we’ll continue to do so.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree with the Minister of Immigration, who said, regarding this country’s failure to grant visas for families of New Zealanders currently in Gaza, “It is not a visa issue; it is a border issue.”, and, if so, is he aware that the Palestinian Embassy in Cairo estimates that since October over 100,000 Gazans have crossed into Egypt?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I’d say to the member is that Immigration is prioritising individual visa applications. Successive Governments—previous Governments and our Government—look at each conflict on its merits. For example, Labour said yes to a special visa for the Ukraine, but said no to a special visa for Sudan. So what we’ve done is we’re looking at the situation in Gaza. It is different. There are real challenges around documentation, there is limited consular support, the borders have been, effectively, closed, and we will continue to access each individual case and process it on its merits.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Prime Minister confirm that every New Zealander in Gaza, contrary to what the questioner said, has been assisted out of Gaza by Foreign Affairs and other embassy work around the world in this country’s interests?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, as I understand it, consular support services got Kiwis who wanted to leave out very, very early.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How is the situation in Gaza different, as the Prime Minister keeps saying?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said, we look at each conflict on its merits; subsequent Governments have done that. In this case, the situation in Gaza is different. People have very limited access to documentation, there is limited consular support, and the borders have been, effectively, closed. That’s why we’re doing it on a case by case basis.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How can he justify his Government’s failure to impose sanctions on Israel for its illegal occupation of Palestine while supporting sanctions against Russia for its illegal invasion of Ukraine, and is this not just a double standard regarding whose rights Aotearoa New Zealand is willing to uphold under his Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I would say to that member, I think our Government has been very clear. We’ve been calling for a ceasefire. We’ve been calling for Hamas to release hostages. We’ve been calling for Israel to meet its obligations. We’ve been putting aid money in. We joined up with other leaders of other countries to make sure our voice has more impact as a result, calling for those things. We want to see the parties get around the table, actually pick up the Biden proposal and actually get it done, and get back to a two-State solution model.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House to table a letter from NGOs, academics, and community leaders calling for action on Palestine to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, dated 27 June 2024.

SPEAKER: Has that letter been sent to the Prime Minister?

Chlöe Swarbrick: I am not yet clear on that. It’s not available publicly.

SPEAKER: Well, how do you mean it’s not available? It’s either sent to him or not. Is it some new letter that no one’s seen before?

Chlöe Swarbrick: I don’t know, Mr Speaker. I’ve been asked to table and release this letter to the Prime Minister.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s not the way to do things, sorry.

Question No. 6—Climate Change

6. to the Acting Minister of Climate Change: Does he agree with the Prime Minister, who said, “we are very confident we can grow the economy and deliver on our emissions targets and goals”, and, if so, how is this consistent with the Climate Change Commission’s independent finding released yesterday that “there are significant risks to meeting the second and third … budgets”?

Yes, I agree with the Prime Minister. We welcome the commission’s advice but note it is based on older data and does not take into account the Government’s draft emissions reduction plan No. 2.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What are specific initiatives, and what are their emissions implications, that have been introduced since the data used in this report was closed off?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The data in the report from the commissioner lacked the information that was in our second emissions plan, and so he was not able to use that information. You’ll see a number of our plans for agriculture, for transport, and for other policies that have been included in that plan that’s been consulted on.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What replacement policies will his Government put in place for industrial decarbonisation to put us back on track to meeting emissions targets, given the now scrapped Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund is expected to deliver projects that would account for 17 percent of total emissions reductions in the first budget and 35 percent of emissions reductions planned in the second emissions budget?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Of course, the previous Government had a different plan to what this Government has. The previous Government was intent upon spending on corporate welfare. This Government is spending $2.6 billion on various climate initiatives.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Is he concerned that the Climate Commission’s analysis shows that the scrapping of the Clean Car Discount and agricultural emissions pricing have elevated the risk of not meeting the first emissions budget, which, under the previous Government, we were on track to meet?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The Government is on track to deliver the first two emissions budgets. We are investing in electric vehicle chargers and we are investing in low-emissions public transport. The commissioner’s report did not have this data available.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Will he advocate to retain the ban on new offshore oil and gas exploration, given backtracking on this policy could, according to the commission, potentially impact our ability to meet emissions budgets and the 2050 targets?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: We are on track to deliver the second emissions budget, which takes into account reversing the oil and gas ban. As we know, gas is a transitional fuel. We are not going to let the lights go out in New Zealand.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does the Minister think it is fair that emissions prices may need to rise upwards of $300 a tonne, according to the commission’s report, if the emissions trading scheme (ETS) is left to function on its own without complementary policies in transport, energy, and agriculture, and, if so, what would the impact of this be on New Zealand households and their budget, given the analysis shows that raising the ETS price to $200 a tonne would add 40c a litre to petrol?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: It would be inappropriate for me to comment on ETS pricing.

Question No. 5 to Minister

Can I just go back to the leave request from Chlöe Swarbrick. Under Speakers’ ruling 165, you can say the document is not available to all members, and if you have permission of the writer to table it in this way, you can put the leave.

I seek leave of the House to table a letter to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs from a number of NGOs, academics, and other community organisations calling for this Government to do everything it can to act for Palestine.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is none. The document can be tabled.

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

Question No. 7—Housing

7. to the Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has been made about making it easier to build homes in New Zealand?

Many, including the coalition Government’s granny flat policy; but specifically, earlier this month, proud to announce the Government’s Going for Housing Growth policy, or at least the first stages of it, allowing our cities to grow both up and out. Housing in this country is too expensive because we’ve made it difficult for our cities to grow. Fixing our housing crisis will improve our economy, improve intergenerational equity, decrease material hardship, and it will help the Government get the books back in order. We will be setting housing growth targets through this plan, making councils make more land available for development. We’re going to improve infrastructure funding and financing and incentivise councils to grow.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What specific changes have been made as part of this Going for Housing Growth announcement?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I announced earlier this month six changes we’ll be making as part of pillar one of this plan. Firstly, the establishment of housing growth targets for tier 1 and 2 councils. Secondly, new rules requiring cities to be allowed to expand outwards at the urban fringe. Thirdly, a strengthening of the intensification provisions of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development. Fourthly, new rules requiring councils to enable mixed-use development in our cities. Fifthly, the abolition of minimum floor area and balcony requirements. And, sixthly, new provisions making the medium-density residential standards rules optional for councils. These six changes are just the start. There is much more to do around infrastructure funding and financing and incentives and across the broader resource management system more generally.

Dr Hamish Campbell: How will the Government’s housing growth targets work?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The targets will apply to 24 city, district, and unitary councils across New Zealand, including Auckland, Christchurch, and Wellington, as well as Tauranga, Hamilton, and Dunedin. They will require councils to “live-zone” feasible development capacity to provide for at least 30 years of housing demand at any one time. Our aim is to flood the market with opportunities for development, drive down land prices and the cost of housing. We also need to have confidence that the demand for housing is not being understated by councils or that the amount of available and feasible development capacity is not being overstated. We’ll, therefore, be introducing a range of new requirements to better understand how councils model these things for their plans.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What impact does he expect the Government’s abolishment of minimum floor areas and balcony requirements to have?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the abolition of these requirements will have a positive impact and allow for more affordable housing. Some councils set minimum floor area and balcony requirements which can significantly increase the cost of new apartments and lower the supply of lower cost apartments. They can make some developments uneconomic or push the cost of housing outside the reach of first-home buyers. For example, in 2015 in the Auckland market, the balcony size requirements increased the cost of an apartment by $40,000 to $70,000 per unit. Now, there are some people in the media who’ve expressed concern about “shoebox apartments” or “slums”. And I say to them this: it is true that smaller dwellings won’t be the right solution for everyone, but one thing is definitely true: something that is smaller than a so-called “shoebox apartment” is a car or a tent or an emergency housing motel room. And this Government is focused on fixing the mess we inherited from the last Government.

Question No. 8—Health

8. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his decision to appoint a commissioner to Health New Zealand, and does he agree that “challenges with the operating model and governance of Health New Zealand had been identified from the early days of its establishment, in large part deriving from a lack of transparency from the Board”?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes. I also agree with the very next sentence from the same Cabinet paper, which reads: “The Ministry of Health had advised regularly that it did not have assurance that the Board was able to exercise its functions effectively…”. Other officials, including the Auditor-General and the Treasury, have outlined concerns about the board’s performance. The difference is that this Government has actually acted on those concerns. We took action by appointing a Crown observer, a board member with financial expertise, a new chair was appointed, and, finally, appointing a commissioner. These appointments have been instrumental in getting to the bottom of the consequences of this botched merger. With the help of the commissioner and the front line, this Government will get Health New Zealand back on track.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Has the Minister been advised that a decision not to fully fund pay equity from the centre was a cause of the deteriorating financial position for Health New Zealand in financial year 2023-24?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I have been advised that pay equity will be funded from the centre and it was not a significant contributor to the deteriorating financial performance of Health New Zealand.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Had he not been advised that the deficit in March was due to a change to the processing of pay equity at all?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: That was not one of the key factors that was contributing to the financial deficit of Health New Zealand.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Has the board rejected the claim that the Treasury secretary asked the Health New Zealand board for information on productivity and the financial year 2023/24 financial position at a meeting on 23 February this year?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: There were challenges getting important information from the board to the Ministry of Health, who is the steward. On 4 April, the chair of Health New Zealand wrote to the director-general, who is the steward of the health system. The title to that letter was “Regarding arrangements relating to sharing of board papers”; the first sentence is, “We have recently begun providing you with board papers.”

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why won’t he give a direct answer to questions about the lead-up to an important decision he took when he is busy accusing others of a lack of transparency?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: There are a range of decisions that that question could relate to. I stand by the decision to appoint a commissioner to address the terrible financial situation that that previous party left.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is Dr Curtis Walker, former Health New Zealand board member and former chair of the Medical Council, correct when he says, “As the political pressure has come on the Government, they have been increasingly desperate in [their] casting about [for] misinformation.”?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Dr Walker is correct when he said he first became aware of the deteriorating financial position at Health New Zealand in March.

Question No. 9—Justice

9. to the Minister of Justice: What actions is the Government taking to ensure real consequences for crime?

This Government is taking a range of actions to restore real consequences for crime. We know that in recent years, those consequences have diminished. And with tougher laws and by bolstering the resources for the front line and by setting defined targets, New Zealanders now have a Government that is taking the safety of the public and the needs of victims seriously.

Tom Rutherford: What progress has been made on the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, yesterday the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill was progressed by Parliament through the second reading. Gang membership has increased by 51 percent in the previous six years, and in the same time, violent crime has gone up by 33 percent and retail crime by 110 percent. This is a significant piece of legislation that provides police with more tools to deal with gangs, who have been allowed to peddle misery in our communities for far too long.

Tom Rutherford: What commentary, if any, has he heard on the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I was astounded to hear this comment: “I want you to ask yourself: would you rather be walking down a dark alley and see a patched member or a police officer? For many people in New Zealand, they would feel safer alone with a patched member than the police.” And that comment was made by a Green MP in the House last night. And to our police, who put their lives on the line to protect our communities, that comment must feel like a kick in the guts.

Tom Rutherford: Does he believe that police are a greater menace to society than gangs?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, I do not. And the very suggestion is repugnant. And apparently, the Green Party aren’t sure.

Tom Rutherford: What impact will the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill have on restoring real consequences for crime and when?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill does four things: it creates a criminal offence for displaying gang insignia in public, which often causes fear and intimidation; it gives the police the power to stop gang members gathering in public; it creates a non-consorting order that can be imposed by the court; and it gives greater weight to gang membership in sentencing. The Justice Committee recommended the commencement date of 21 November, and the impact of this will be felt well before Christmas.

Question No. 10—Children

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Children and asks: does she stand by her statement regarding cuts to Oranga Tamariki that “There will be no financial impact and there’[ll] be no impact on the frontline services. This is a guarantee”?

Hon Karen Chhour: Mr Speaker—

The member is displaying a badge that I’ve, in earlier sessions, said would remove people from participating in question time. I don’t want to cost the Greens a question, but I’d suggest that another Minister from the Government might now answer the question. Ask the question again.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by her statement regarding cuts to Oranga Tamariki that “There will be no financial impact and there’[ll] be no impact on the frontline services. This is a guarantee”?

Hon Karen Chhour: Mr Speaker.

No, another member from the Government will answer it; you’re not answering it wearing the badge. Simple as that.

Hon David Seymour: Mr Speaker: yes.

No, no. No, I’m sorry, you’re out too. So, none the less, carry on. I’m just making it very clear: if ACT members want to stand up displaying their party badge, they’re not going to be recognised. The Government needs to prepare to answer from some other Minister who is complying with my ruling.

Point of order. Mr Speaker, I understand where you’re coming from, and we did have a discussion yesterday at Business Committee about this issue, but in the interests of making sure that the honourable member from the Greens gets an answer to her question about this very important issue, can I suggest we take the time to perhaps discuss the issue of the lapels further. Because I think, respectfully, everyone is on board with the idea that members should not be able to display party paraphernalia on boxes and—

I think it would be a good idea if you stopped right now, because it’s not a point of order; it’s a challenge to a ruling. And the member knows that there is a way in which you can go about that. So, Kahurangi Carter, some other Government Minister, I hope, will answer you.

10. to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by her statement regarding cuts to Oranga Tamariki that “There will be no financial impact and there’[ll] be no impact on the frontline services. This is a guarantee”?

on behalf of the Minister for Children: Yes, in the context in which the comments were given.

Kahurangi Carter: How does she justify cutting the Oranga Tamariki team Tākai, which has served as a core pillar of prevention support in early years parenting, and will next week be shutting down—even their website—losing a valuable and world-leading resource for young whānau and support workers?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, the Government has been clear that we are protecting front-line services, and we are also clear about the requirement to support families in need.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she stand by her statement that “It is important that we act decisively and honour the courage of these victims and survivors by making sure that something like this never happens again.”, and, if so, why is she implementing a $120 million cut in funding for service providers, which will significantly impact front-line care and prevention for children at risk?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, I stand by the comments I’ve made in the context in which they are given, and also that this Government is committed to ensuring that funds that are provided on behalf of and given by taxpayers are delivering outcomes that we expect them to.

Kahurangi Carter: What does she say to the 400 front-line Oranga Tamariki service providers, including early years and teen parent services, counselling, and family and sexual violence services, whose contracts have ended on 30 June and have not had clear direction on when or if their contracts will be renewed?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, I understand that it is challenging for organisations that are in a period of time waiting for confirmation of contracts, but our Government is committed to ensuring that the tax that is paid by hard-working New Zealanders goes to services that are getting the outcomes that we expect and need for New Zealanders.

Kahurangi Carter: What does she say in response to Nikki Hurst of the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, who says, “Some of the things that will be winding up, there is no comparable service available in that community.”; and how, if at all, will Oranga Tamariki be filling the gaps in front-line care and prevention that these contract cuts will create?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, our Government is committed to ensuring that services deliver the outcomes that New Zealanders expect, and that we continue to evaluate programmes to ensure we’re able to deliver the outcomes expected. And I would say to the person that the member has referred to that this is a Government that is listening, we are a Government that is committed to delivering for New Zealanders, and that is our focus.

Question No. 11—Tertiary Education and Skills

11. to the Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills: Does she stand by all her answers to oral question No. 10 on 30 July 2024, and oral question No. 5 on 8 May 2024; if not, why not?

In answer to the first and second parts of the member’s question, the answers are yes and yes.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Does she stand by her statement to the House that she doesn’t recall being advised by Te Pūkenga that her directive to cease restructuring would result in additional costs of $53 million in 2024?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Yes, I do, but I did look back, as I gave an undertaking to, and I can confirm that on 8 December 2023, I received advice from the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC)—which is a different entity to Te Pūkenga—which noted that certain financial risk may result in Te Pūkenga achieving a worse deficit than the $93 million forecast for 2024. However, I’m pleased to advise the Speaker that my letter of expectation on 5 December 2023 and clarification on 20 May 2024 reinforcing the need to progress financial sustainability initiatives has ensured that the deficit to date is tracking considerably better than the deficit forecast, not worse.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Is the Minister asserting that the letter that was sent to her on 8 December 2023 by Te Pūkenga does not include an amount of $53 million that she has directly cost them and the taxpayer?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The briefing that I was referring to was from TEC, but I am happy to go back and have a look if there is another letter. I certainly found a briefing from the Tertiary Education Commission asserting that there may be risks that would make the deficit worse, but, as I advised, the work that has been done by this Government has made the deficit considerably better than that forecast.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Does she stand by her statement to the House on 8 May 2024 that “I did not direct Te Pūkenga to take actions. I cannot direct Te Pūkenga to take actions.”?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Yes, I do. I cannot and did not direct Te Pūkenga to take action. I can, however, express my views and inform them of the Government’s policies, and in my letter of expectation on 5 December 2023 and clarification on 20 May 2024, I advised them of those expectations.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: How is this consistent with the letter from Te Pūkenga to her on 8 December 2023 that said: “In addition, the direct instructions issued by you to him on operational matters caused him and me significant concern.”?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I will go back and have a look at the letter, but I am advising that my briefing that I got from the tertiary education advised of some risk of deteriorating financial situation. It is a matter of fact that that has not occurred and that the actions that this Government has taken have improved the financial situation of Te Pūkenga considerably. These actions should have been taken four years ago; they are happening now.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Is she aware that giving direct instructions to the chair and the chief executive of a Crown entity is a breach of the Crown Entities Act and the Cabinet Manual?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I am aware. I cannot and I did not direct Te Pūkenga to take action. I can, however, express my views and inform them of Government policies, and what a good thing I did, because it has saved the country millions of dollars.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: When is she going to ask the Prime Minister the $53 million question—to put her out of her misery and fire her?

SPEAKER: Question—we’re moving to—[Interruption] We’ll wait for quiet.

Question No. 12—Mental Health

12. to the Minister for Mental Health: What recent announcement has he made regarding the Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund?

Today, I announced that applications will open for the Government’s new $10 million Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund. The fund will support new and innovative initiatives that are focused on increasing access to better mental health support. The fund has an emphasis on innovation and delivering scalable solutions, and, in doing so, we’ll increase the access to mental health and addiction support. This fund was inspired from listening to grassroots organisations, who are already delivering for their communities.

Dan Bidois: Why is the Government establishing such a mental health and addiction innovation fund?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: That’s a very good question. This Government is committed to getting money out of Wellington, out of the bureaucracy, and investing in our hard-working NGO and community mental health providers who are already delivering. The fund will support innovative community providers of mental health services to scale up their already successful operations so they can reach more vulnerable Kiwis without putting more pressure on the publicly funded mental health workforce. I firmly believe the answers to many of the issues we have in mental health are already out there in the sector and just need to be backed by this Government. I’m proud to be part of a Government that has listened to the innovative ideas and to the people behind these ideas, that has resulted in the development of this fund.

Dan Bidois: Who will be eligible for funding in this fund?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: The innovation fund will be open to NGOs and community mental health and addiction providers, including iwi-based and other kaupapa Māori providers across the motu. The fund provides access to Government-matched funding up to $1 million for innovative projects and initiatives that will improve mental health outcomes in this country. To be eligible for funding through the innovation fund, providers will need to demonstrate that their initiative is scalable, increases access to mental health and addiction support, delivers a positive social return on investment, and uses a workforce outside the publicly funded mental health workforce.

Dan Bidois: How can organisations apply for the fund?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Very good question. The request for proposals for the first round of funding will open today on the Government procurement website gets.govt.nz. I expect the first contracts with providers to be in place by early November. I’m advised that since the details went up on the Government procurement website, there have been over 300 inquiries—and some of them from Australia—from interested providers within the mental health and addiction sector, all with innovative ideas on how to lift the performance of the mental health and addiction system. I’m proud to be part of a Government that takes mental health seriously and is investing in it through Budget 2024.