Oral Questions

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

Yes, and especially our action to support Kiwis with the cost of living. From tomorrow, 3.5 million individuals will keep more of what they earn. We are adjusting tax brackets and eligibility for the independent earner tax credit after years of inflation dragging Kiwis into higher and higher tax brackets. We’re boosting Working for Families payments by up to $50 a fortnight, and that comes on top of our other changes to support Kiwis with the cost of living crisis. Whether that’s abolishing the Auckland regional fuel tax or introducing FamilyBoost to support families with the cost of childcare, we are putting the squeezed middle and low and middle income working New Zealanders at the heart of this Government.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by the commitment made by Christopher Luxon in the 2023 general election leaders’ debate to halve child poverty by 2028?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, we’re going to work incredibly hard to lower child poverty across the country.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why, then, did his Government quietly weaken child poverty targets last month, allowing approximately 23,000 more children to be pushed into hardship?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are determined to rebuild this economy so that we can grow the prosperity and wealth of all families and take children out of poverty.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How is it fair that his tax cut package, which he keeps saying will benefit low and middle income earners—while analysis in fact shows that 64 percent of the benefit goes to the top 40 percent of households—will see children and families struggling the most get nothing because they’re on benefits?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Ninety-four percent of households across New Zealand are going to get tax relief; 83 percent of individuals in this country are going to get tax relief. What we have done is not ideologically difficult. Centre-left and centre-right Governments do this all around the world—of adjusting tax thresholds. That’s why we would hope that the Greens and Labour would support this adjustment.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is he saying that children deserve to live in poverty if their parents’ income comes from benefits?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, we’re not saying that, but we are lifting tax thresholds so that families get to keep more of what they earn and support their own children.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Did he read the section of the royal commission into abuse in care report which says, “Child protection is also an economic and political issue rather than just the behaviour of individuals. Research shows a clear relationship between poverty and care system contact.”, and, if so, why is he choosing to allow for more children to live in poverty under his Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I have read the report, and that’s why this Government is working incredibly hard to rebuild the economy, to kill inflation, and to lower the cost of living, so that, actually, we can make this country more prosperous. That’s what it’s about.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the Prime Minister: does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions? [Interruption]

Yes, I do. I do stand by our—yes, especially the action we’ve—

Hold on. Wait on. What was that? Where did that come from?

Hon Members: Backbenchers.

SPEAKER: I’m sorry; it’s not a playground, for goodness’ sake! Just keep your tittle-tattle to yourself. In the meantime, just everyone recognise that a question is asked in silence and doesn’t require any commentary. Please ask the question again.

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

Yes, and especially the action that we’re taking to fix our healthcare system. The previous Government’s botched merger left Health New Zealand with broken governance and poor financial controls. Just to give you a feel for it: if you’re a patient, you interact with a team member, the team member interacts with a team supervisor who reports to a team leader, who reports to an assistant manager, then a manager, then a service manager, the service manager reports to the general manager; the general manager reports to the group director of operations—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, just a minute. We’ll just hear the rest in quiet. It’s just ridiculous. Carry on, Prime Minister.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I was saying, the amazing thing with our health system that we inherited from the previous Government is that a patient interacts with a team member, the team member reports to the team supervisor, who reports to the team leader, the team leader reports to the assistant manager, the assistant manager reports to the manager, who reports to the service manager, who then reports to the general manager. The general manager—you might be asking, “Well, who do they report to?” Well, they report to the group director of operations, and, of course, they report to the regional director, the national director, eventually the chief of staff, then the chief executive, and, of course, they report to the chair and the board. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has Health New Zealand verified—

SPEAKER: Hang on. When someone is standing to ask a question, keep quiet.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has Health New Zealand verified that the reporting relationships, as the Prime Minister has just set out, is exactly what happens?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, and that’s what was provided to me by Health New Zealand.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement that his Government has a laser-like focus on bringing down the cost of living; if so, did hiking car registration fees and expanding road-user charges raise or lower the cost of living for New Zealand families?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the great news is that we are a Government that is introducing tax relief for the first time in 14 years. We are lifting the tax thresholds so that people don’t get caught in higher tax brackets they don’t need to be in. That means they’ve got more money so they can navigate the cost of living.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister whether raising registration fees and expanding road-user charges was raising or lowering the cost of living; I didn’t ask him about tax cuts.

SPEAKER: Well, the Prime Minister, I’m sure, might want to add to his comments so far.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, I’m fine, actually.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s a reasonable position.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: He couldn’t find any notes in his folder there for that one, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, no, hang on.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Oh, the ventriloquist is away today, that’s right! Oh, there we go!

SPEAKER: Comments like that don’t help the order of the House and certainly don’t help dispose the member asking the question, or making the comment, to the goodwill of the Speaker. Could you please carry on with your next supplementary.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did that laser-like focus on bringing down the cost of living lead to charging children more for public transport, which has resulted in some young families spending hundreds of dollars more per week just to send their children to school?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah, and what I’d say is that a majority of New Zealanders don’t use public transport, and some of them actually drive, and some of them really appreciate the removal of the Auckland regional fuel tax, and some of them really appreciate the removal of the ute tax. But what they all certainly appreciate is tax relief for low and middle income workers, a group of people who the Labour Party used to care about, but it has lost its way. David Parker cares about them, but the Labour Party doesn’t.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did that laser-like focus on bringing down the cost of living compel him to reintroduce prescription co-payments, driving people away from preventative care towards hospitals, costing more in the long run?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: There’s no evidence of that. But what I would say is that it is important, isn’t it, because I saw a Labour Party press release, right? They had their numbers wrong, which is not surprising because this is actually what has been the issue. They assumed that people would get a prescription every single week, but there’s actually a $100 cap on those fees per household. So that’s wrong.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Government is committed to spending wisely and cutting waste in order that it can afford to tax hard-working Kiwis less and provide the essential services they rely on?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely, and that was what was a feature of this last Budget—was that we were able to invest more in front-line services, remove wasteful spending, give people tax relief, and lay out the conditions for growth going forward.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who was that laser focus concentrated on: pensioners, who can expect to get just $2.50 a week; minimum wage earners, who can expect to get $12.50; or one Philip Morris, who just got $216 million in tax cuts?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just say to the member: are you against low and middle income working New Zealanders getting tax relief?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister’s asked me a question, and I seek leave to answer it.

SPEAKER: No, he didn’t, actually; he asked it of me.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: No, he asked it of me.

SPEAKER: No, he said “you”, and you know who “you” is in this case.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Oh, well, I seek leave to answer it on your behalf, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you very much, but I’m quite capable of answering it myself. This time, I’m not going to.

Question No. 3—Regional Development

3. to the Minister for Regional Development: What announcements has he made regarding the Regional Infrastructure Fund?

Recently I announced that I will be holding a series of nationwide summits, enabling people from the regions to identify priorities and aspirations and move on from the Wellington-centric, bureaucratic-laden approach of the last three years. These 15 summits will begin on 12 August in Nelson, but, most importantly, we need to boost economic resilience and create further opportunities to drive productivity, given the woeful state of the economy inherited when we arrived in power.

Andy Foster: What is the purpose of the regional summits and where will they be held?

Hon SHANE JONES: There’s been far too much handwringing. There’s been far too much culture wars afflicting economic development. These will be opportunities where we can elevate the importance of mining. We can lead a national discussion about the role of rare-earth minerals, including vanadium located in the iron sands off the coast of Taranaki. We can talk about water storage. We can talk about a host of other interventions that we will need, because New Zealand needs all the segments of economic growth pumping, creating export earnings, and turning around our fortunes. And these summits—hopefully, they will emulate the turnout I enjoyed in Blackball.

Andy Foster: What classes of infrastructure will the Regional Infrastructure Fund support?

Hon SHANE JONES: So this fund follows on from the great work achieved in an earlier Government in regional New Zealand—sadly, lapsed in more recent times. The types of infrastructure that one has in mind—and already people are queuing up, sending through their proposals to enable us to deal better with the inevitable shocks associated with volatile weather. Co-investment will now—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Climate change—say climate change.

Hon SHANE JONES: I don’t want any more Green ideological sludge from that side of the House. This is a pure economic development approach. Co-governance is gone; co-investment is in.

Andy Foster: What are examples of projects that we supported through the Regional Infrastructure Fund?

Hon SHANE JONES: It’s important that we respond with alacrity and work with partners in the regions so that we adapt to cope with the inevitable changes in our quality of life, in our infrastructure, as weather worsens.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Climate change.

Hon SHANE JONES: There’s no place in these serious debates for Green quackery. This will focus on those measurable types of investments, including that announced during the course of the Budget, which is to boost resilience through ensuring that our river systems and our catchments are better managed with flood management. That is a far more practical response, other than the Green handwringing that afflicts New Zealand.

SPEAKER: I’ll just say to members down in that back quadrant of the House that interjections are to be interjections, not just barracking from a seat. Please keep that in mind.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: When will personal income tax thresholds be increased?

Income tax thresholds are being increased tomorrow. The in-work tax credit for low and middle income working families is being increased tomorrow. The independent earner tax credit is being extended to $70,000 of income tomorrow. New Zealanders and their families will keep more of their hard-earned income, and members on this side of the House are proud to have voted for it.

Stuart Smith: What has been done to prepare employers and payroll providers for these changes?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Delivering tax relief to employees requires more than 242,000 employers and more than 120 payroll providers to be ready. The IRD has been working with these providers, Government agencies, large entities, tax intermediaries, and employer associations to ensure they have the right information to update their payroll systems. Inland Revenue has ensured they know what to do and are ready to go tomorrow.

Stuart Smith: How much tax relief will people receive?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: People’s circumstances vary. To see how an individual or family will benefit from tomorrow, I strongly encourage people to go to budget.govt.nz and check out the tax calculator. But, on average, households will benefit by $60 a fortnight, and households with children by $78 a fortnight. This tax relief, as the Prime Minister has said, has been targeted at ordinary, hard-working families. On this side of the House, we’re proud to stand up for workers.

Stuart Smith: How many people have now used the Budget tax calculator?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, more good news. The Minister of Finance told the House last Thursday that 517,000 people had used the tax calculator. I’m now happy to update members. The number of people using the calculator has now risen to 561,000 people—up almost 45,000 since the statement last week. Kiwis can’t wait for tax relief, because they haven’t had it in 14 long years. And I just remind the House, members opposite voted against it.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement, “we won’t have to borrow extra to provide tax relief and we won’t be adding to inflationary pressures”; if not, why not?

Yes. Budget documents, including the Budget at a Glance document, clearly show that the $3.7 billion per annum of tax relief is fully funded from savings and revenue initiatives, so the Government is not borrowing to fund tax relief and it won’t add to inflation. On this side of the House, as I said in answer to the last question, we’re proud to be ensuring that hard-working Kiwis keep more of what they earn.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What was net debt forecast to peak at in the pre-election fiscal update, and is it higher in her Budget?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: If the member wants a specific answer in relation to that, she’ll have to put it down. But net debt continues to increase, as the member knows, because we have inherited a fiscal mess from the previous Government, and we are having to work as hard as we can to get debt under control. That is one of the reasons why Budget 2024 reprioritises low-value expenditure towards the front line and makes sure we get back on a fiscal track to get the Government books back in order.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with economist Shamubeel Eaqub, who said, “Borrowing in this Budget to fund tax cuts and operating spending is like earning less and living off the overdraft … This increase in borrowing chooses to rack up debt for future generations to give tax cuts now.”; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I don’t often agree with Shamubeel Eaqub, although I have respect for him, and I don’t agree with him in this circumstance. There is no doubt that the Government is not borrowing for tax relief in this Budget. I invite the member to read the Budget at a Glance document, which she is clearly unfamiliar with. It outlines the five changes in the Budget 2024 tax package, which total $3.68 billion in average annual cost. And I also invite her to go down to the next table—it’s only a couple of bars down—which outlines the savings and revenue to fund the tax relief.

SPEAKER: Before the member asks her question, can I just say that when a question is asked, it’s presumed that the people asking it, or on whose behalf it’s asked, want to know the answer. Just yelling at the answer doesn’t in any way make it any more palatable to those who are listening to it. It is the answer the Government decides to give, so just calm it down a little bit.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the head of BNZ research that the fiscal position will make the Reserve Bank more nervous and that “It’s not the tax cuts per se but the fact that the fiscal impulse is larger,”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, and I refer the member to the Treasury’s analysis in the Budget update, which says, and I quote, “The decisions taken through Budget 2024 will on balance reduce the contribution fiscal policy is making to inflation pressure. Tax policy changes will boost aggregate demand, but this is more than offset by lower government spending and lower allowances compared to the Half Year Update.” The member cannot have it both ways. She cannot argue that debt is too high and also that we should go back on a spending spree. That sort of mentality has led us to the fiscal disaster that we have inherited from the previous Government. Unlike the last Government, this Government is taking a responsible path, getting debt back under control, and getting our fiscal books back in order.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the leader of the ACT Party, who said, “net debt is forecast to reach $100 billion by 2025. They’ve given up on New Zealand and New Zealanders need to give up on them.”, and has she given up on New Zealanders, given net debt at its peak will be higher due to her Budget decisions?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I often agree with the leader of the ACT Party, who I’ve found to make incisive and cogent remarks about public policy. And if members opposite, when they were in Government, had listened to the leader of the ACT Party and the leader of the National Party and, indeed, the leader of the New Zealand First Party when they had the opportunity, we wouldn’t be in the fiscal mess that we are in right now. We are working hard as a Government to get inflation back under control and be a friend to monetary policy, which is quite a contrast from the last three years when inflation peaked at over 7 percent, forcing the governor to hike interest rates very rapidly, which has put enormous pressure on households. We are taking the tough decisions as a Government to get our books back in order.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm that the Government is committed to spending reductions of over $13 billion over four years and an operating allowance of over only $2.4 billion, or 1.7 percent of total spending for the next four years, and has the ACT Party leader said anything about how excited he is about that prospect?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, I can confirm that, and one of the things that is notable about the Budget is that it sets lower operating allowances for Budget 2025 and onwards than the one that we have just gone through. And I would contrast that and compare it to the large operating allowances set by the previous Minister of Finance, which were notable by the fact that he never once met them. He always exceeded them, every single year, and that is why Government spending went up by such a large amount in such a short amount of time, and that is, of course, one of the reasons why inflation peaked at 7 percent and one of the reasons why we have net debt at a higher level now than would otherwise be the case.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with Chris Bishop’s characterisation that $104 billion in debt is a blowout, and, if so, what does that make the $114 billion of net debt under her watch?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh well, I’ve always found Chris Bishop to be a very incisive and cogent commentator on the Crown books, and I often take his advice and I will continue to do so.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she say the Government is not borrowing extra for tax cuts when her own Budget shows that the income tax cuts cost $10 billion and the Government is issuing an additional $12 billion of debt bonds?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Because, as I have said twice already, I think, in this answer—and I invite the member to listen—it is very clear that every single dollar of the Budget 2024 tax package, which includes a lifting of the thresholds and changes to the independent earner tax credit to allow New Zealanders to keep more of what they earn—and I again remind the House that that member voted against it; tax relief for the first time in 14 years. Every single dollar of that is funded from baseline savings: closing stupid Labour programmes like industry transformation plans; a climate dividend; commercial buildings depreciation; taxing online casino operators, which the Minister of Internal Affairs issued a press release about just this morning, I believe; revenue from immigration levies; replacing first-year fees free with final-year fees free; and investment in tax compliance activities. All of these, on the Treasury’s numbers, add up to more than the cost of the tax package, so it is simply fallacious to claim the Government is borrowing for tax cuts.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm that some of the people browsing on the Treasury’s tax calculator have been found, by analysis, to be Labour voters from Wadestown browsing in incognito mode?

SPEAKER: No, that’s not something you would know anything about at all.

Question No. 6—Transport

6. to the Minister of Transport: What actions has the Government taken to reduce temporary traffic management?

Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. Earlier this month, I announced the Government is taking action to reduce expenditure on road cones and temporary traffic management while maintaining the safety of workers and road users. We’re rolling out a new risk-based approach to temporary traffic management which will see less reliance on road cones, requiring the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to report publicly on how much taxpayers’ money it’s spending on temporary traffic management, and we’re appointing independent members to the Road Efficiency Group to manage the reduction in expenditure and ensure all road-controlling authorities are focused on this outcome.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What reports has he seen on the excessive use of road cones on our roads?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I’ve seen a report from the New Zealand Transport Agency that shows why we need to crack down on the excessive use of traffic management. NZTA conducted a review of temporary traffic management at 800 maintenance work sites on the State highway network across the country in February and found that 145 of these sites were not needed, revealing how out of control the use of road cones and temporary traffic management has become. Auckland Council Mayor Wayne Brown has also released a report showing that $145 million of expenditure has been incurred by his council group every single year. We need to get these costs under control.

Dana Kirkpatrick: How will the Government’s risk-based approach to temporary traffic management reduce the number of cones on our roads?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The new risk-based model is based on the Australian approach to temporary traffic management, where there is far less reliance on the no longer humble orange road cone. This new approach will include changes to contracts and a new way of training and monitoring to ensure that this meets both safety and cost efficiency outcomes. NZTA is now also continually reviewing current temporary traffic management on the network and instructing its suppliers to remove temporary traffic management that is not required.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Why is the Government requiring NZTA to report its expenditure on road cones and traffic management?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: When I became transport Minister, I asked NZTA to outline how much money has been spent by NZTA each year for the past three years on temporary traffic management, and was advised this information was not available as it was not compiled. This is unacceptable. That’s why the Government will be requiring NZTA and all road-controlling authorities to report quarterly on the amount of taxpayers’ money they are spending so that Kiwis know how much of their hard-earned money is being spent on road cones and temporary traffic management. We need to get this cost under control and reduce the inconvenience on motorists.

Hon Brooke van Velden: Can he confirm that one of the reasons New Zealanders are faced with a sea of orange road cones is unclear health and safety obligations, and that’s why this Government is going to make sure that our health and safety rules are clear, sensible, and proportionate to risk?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes, and that is exactly why the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is undertaking a review of the Health and Safety at Work Act, to actually ensure that we are balancing the requirements to ensure our road workers are safe whilst also not inconveniencing motorists and increasing costs on councils and on the NZTA unnecessarily.

Question No. 7—Health

7. to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that there are 14 layers of management at Health New Zealand?

Yes, I agree with the Prime Minister, particularly when he said, “it’s actually been a botched restructuring and a botched merger that actually hasn’t delivered an efficient operating model.”, and that’s obvious when you talk to the front-line staff—the doctors and the nurses at the front line. Whether it’s patients or front-line staff, there was too much distance between them and Health New Zealand leaders. That’s why this Government has taken decisive action by appointing a commissioner to turn around Health New Zealand and to put patients and front-line workers front and centre.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that he advised the Prime Minister there were 14 layers of management at Health New Zealand?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Yes, it is correct. I received that advice from Health New Zealand.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Did he or his office create or change the list of 14 layers of management within Health New Zealand that he supplied to the Prime Minister or media last week?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We collaborated with Health New Zealand and we produced the table that was then published in public domain, which we stand by.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Isn’t it a bit rich to accuse others of being poor governors when, one week after his announcement, he’s still not really clear what the management structure of Te Whatu Ora really is?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What is not rich is Health New Zealand, because of the deficit that member left.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does his private health insurance cover injuries sustained while being thrown under the bus by the PM?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: No, you don’t—we move now to question—

Hon Chris Bishop: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: A point of order?

Hon Chris Bishop: A supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Oh, a supplementary—the Hon Chris Bishop.

Hon Chris Bishop: How many layers are there between Dr Ayesha Verrall and Kieran McAnulty in the Labour Party—

SPEAKER: No, that’s not a question. I’m just going to have to generally warn members about those sorts of questions. They’ll just lead to the curtailing of other questions.

Question No. 8—Children

8. to the Minister for Children: How, if at all, will she ensure that an evidence-based approach is at the heart of the Government’s military-style boot camps?

First of all, this Government does not have boot camps. The Government has begun a military-style academy pilot, which got under way yesterday, as part of the Government’s response to address serious youth offending and lowering harm in our communities. The ten young people will be at the heart of the military-style academy pilot, and they all deserve to have the opportunity to turn their lives around. In regards to the evidence, the design of the pilot was informed by evidence and lessons from other military-style programmes, such as the Limited Service Volunteer programme and the Military-style Activity Camp programme, as well as overseas examples. These lessons included the need for comprehensive assessment prior to starting, which each young person on the pilot has received from a clinical psychologist. Other lessons included the need to focus on the transition from the residential environment back into the community. This is why we are working with families, where possible, and each young person will have a mentor who will be alongside them throughout their journey, both for the three-month in-residence and nine-month community phase.

SPEAKER: Can I just notify the House that there is a small problem with the microphones at the back of the House, affecting the output from those microphones, so listening more intently is probably the best way to get the most out of these questions.

Tamatha Paul: Does she accept the finding by the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in State care: “Research demonstrates that boot camps and other harsh, sharp, short, and shock interventions for youth are ineffective at reducing repeat offending.”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Yes, I do agree that boot camps in the past were horrific and did cause harm to people who went on those boot camps. They were run inappropriately, with staff who were not trained, in a remote isolated area with no way to actually seek help. This is not what we’re doing, and I am proud to stand by this Government in working with these young people to address serious youth offending.

Tamatha Paul: Is she able to guarantee that young people will not be at risk of abuse in military-style boot camps, and, if not, why is she ploughing ahead with a failed system that puts young people at risk?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Nobody can guarantee the actions of others, but what we can do is make sure we put everything in place to make sure that the risks are as low as possible and that, if something does happen, we act quickly and efficiently and in the right way.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Isn’t it the case that there are no drills at these military-style boot camps, no military fatigues, no military staff, and, in fact, there’s nothing particularly military at all about these military-style boot camps?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The New Zealand Defence Force has been involved from the very beginning in designing the programme, training the staff, and actually making sure that this is a well-rounded programme.

Laura Trask: What evidence has the Minister seen on previous approaches to youth crime?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I’ve seen evidence that the previous approaches to youth crime saw a 291 percent increase in ram raids over the last six years. In 2023, over 85 percent of offenders were younger than 18. I’ve also seen evidence that previous approaches made people feel scared to go to work and fear for their safety and for the safety of their families and employees. I’ve seen evidence that youth crime costs businesses thousands of dollars in damage and stolen goods every time they are hit, with business owners making the tough decision to shut their shops for good rather than put themselves at risk.

Tamatha Paul: What alternative interventions were considered before deciding on boot camps, and why were they dismissed?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: These young people are in a youth justice facility currently because they have committed serious offences. It is obvious that approaches that have been tried beforehand haven’t worked. That is why we are trying a new approach.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. Thank you. The question was very succinct and clear about what options were provided to the Minister. She talked about previous attempts but at no point did she address any of the evidence or advice she would have been receiving.

Hon Todd McClay: We’re not in Mexico. That’s not how we do it here.

SPEAKER: No, I don’t think that’s a fair analysis of the answer that was given, with all due respect.

Tamatha Paul: What does she say to the survivors of abuse—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: I’ll tell you what. Ask the question when the House is quiet.

Tamatha Paul: What does she say to the survivors of abuse in State care, whose royal commission inquiry report had an entire 100-page chapter called “Boot camp”, and their pleas for no more military-style boot camps?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: With all due respect, I’ve stood here and said many times that I am sorry for what those people went through. But this military-style academy has nothing to do with the boot camps of the past, which were absolutely horrendous, run by untrained staff on a remote island with weapons, and they were allowed to do whatever they pleased. There is nothing like that in this military-style academy.

Question No. 9—Justice

9. to the Minister of Justice: How is the Government progressing with its plan to restore law and order?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Government is well advanced on our plan to restore law and order with a combination of both extra resources for front-line delivery and legislative change to ensure real consequences for crime. Yesterday, the military-style academy pilot began, a powerful intervention that’s necessary to turn the lives around of young people who are committing a significant proportion of youth crime in New Zealand. And, today, the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill will have its second reading, providing police with more tools to deal with gangs.

James Meager: What will the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill do?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill, set down for second reading, provides police with more tools to deal with gangs. It prohibits the display of gang insignia in public places, gives police the ability to issue dispersal notices to gatherings that disrupt the public, it creates new non-consorting orders, and amends the Sentencing Act to make gang membership, on its own, an aggravating factor. Gangs have, for some time, been allowed to behave as if they’re above the law; they are not.

James Meager: What progress has the Government made in recent weeks with its plan to restore law and order?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I recently announced the Government will change the Sentencing Act to ensure real consequences for crime. This will cap the use of sentencing discounts at 40 percent, introduce a new aggravating factor to address serious retail crime, encourage the use of cumulative sentences, and a raft of other changes. Under this Government, victims—not offenders—will be the priority of the justice system.

James Meager: What other progress has been made?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: In response to a significant increase in retail crime over the past five years, with the total number of reported victimisations up 86 percent, the Government tasked its ministerial advisory group for the victims of retail crime with developing specific proposals to address urgent challenges in retail crime, starting with considering greater powers for security guards to detain thieves.

Hon Nicole McKee: How will including violent attacks on sole-charge workers as an aggravating factor at sentencing, as outlined in the ACT and National coalition agreement, contribute to law and order?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: We think it’s only right that offending against people who live in fear of theft and assault, because they work alone or their business is interconnected with their home, results in a tougher sentence. Victims’ interests should always be front of mind at sentencing, and that is why the Government’s package of sentencing reform will give this greater weight, because this Government thinks victims are the priority, not the perpetrators.

James Meager: What recent comments has he seen about restoring law and order in regard to prioritising the needs of victims?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Today, I read a new report published by Victim Support that recommended: “The media, justice system, and public discourse should emphasise that crime is the fault of criminals, not victims.” This Government agrees, which is why, in Budget 2024, we provided an additional $8 million over four years to increase financial grants to victims of serious crime through the Victim Assistance Scheme and why we’ve set an ambitious target to reduce the number of people who are the victims of assault, robbery, or sexual assault by 20,000 by 2029.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon, who said, “I’m telling you, when we get in Government, we’re not doing working groups and endless kumbaya and lots of talking.”, and, if so, why is he setting up a working group that has two years of talking before reporting back?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I always agree with the Prime Minister. And, of course, we’re not setting up a working group to wait for two years. I’ve made it very clear that I want that group, which will be chaired by Sunny Kaushal, to come up with specific proposals, quickly, on how we can deal with the retail crime that we’ve got. We need to make progress faster in that area.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wanted to raise this at the earliest available opportunity. I was just taking advice from the Clerk and so just wanted to raise a matter that I take personal offence to. So after the point of order that I did in relationship to Tamatha Paul’s question, Todd McClay, the Minister of Trade, threw a barb back saying—as best as I can understand—“You’re not in Mexico now. We don’t do things like that here.” I’ve just consulted with Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Teanau just to confirm the contents of that interjection. So I just want you to know that I take personal offence to it.

SPEAKER: Yeah, OK. So, firstly, the Hon Todd McClay, was that an interjection that was offered across the House? And if it was, I would suggest he might withdraw and apologise.

Hon Todd McClay: I withdraw and apologise.

Question No. 10—Tertiary Education and Skills

10. to the Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills: [Interruption][Member waits for silence]

SPEAKER: There’s actually a lot coming from the left as well, so by all means, wait but not for too long.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Does she stand by her statement that she will cut “the very expensive, bloated head office of Te Pūkenga” to fund the expected deficits that polytechnics are facing?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, I stand by that statement in the context that it was given back in December 2023.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why, then, has Te Pūkenga been instructed to employ highly paid consultants to find ways to cut costs?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) has recently exercised its statutory intervention power to require Te Pūkenga to obtain specialist external help to conduct the necessary cost-out work, to develop clear pathways to re-establishing an Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand (ITP) network and to implement this work. The ITP sector faces significant financial sustainability issues that were not addressed by Te Pūkenga. This work should have gone ahead four years ago. Sadly, in the four years, millions of dollars have been wasted.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: How can she expect Te Pūkenga to turn their financial situation around when she has not yet set out her plan for the future structure of Te Pūkenga and vocational education?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The previous Government reduced funding rates for front-line education delivery by polytechnics and other providers, diverting funding into central projects. This has also driven the increase in their deficits. In March 2024, Te Pūkenga’s chief executive initiated a review of head office with a view to reducing central roles to only what is essential to meet current legislative-compliance requirements and undertake disestablishment work. That work is also under way, as well as the cost-out that should have occurred four years ago.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe I asked about the Minister’s plan for the future of Te Pūkenga, not what was happening previously.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m pleased you believe it, because you did. The first thought I had was that this is not the way to answer the question, except it was qualifying the body of the answer, which was the action that was taken on 24 March this year.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Did Te Pūkenga advise her that her directive to cease restructuring ahead of her promised plan would result in additional costs of $53 million in 2024?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I don’t recall being given that advice from Te Pūkenga—they may have given advice to the TEC, who they report to. However, there is considerable work that has to carry on in terms of cost-out that should have occurred four years ago. That work is occurring now, as is the reduction in head office, and, as I previously said, the funding rates that were reduced by the previous Government for front-line education delivery by polytechnics and other providers also contribute to those deficits.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Is the Minister saying that she has not received any advice or correspondence stating that the decisions she has made will cost Te Pūkenga $53 million?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: If the member would like to put that in writing to me, I’ll go back and check, but that is not information that I’ve immediately got to hand.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Is the Minister saying that she has no recollection of any correspondence that clearly sets out, addressed to her, her decisions costing Te Pūkenga $53 million; and how could she possibly forget a sum of $53 million?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: This Government is undertaking considerable work to take cost out of Te Pūkenga. We have asked for the head office to be reduced, we are looking at the funding decreases that were brought in by the previous Government, and we are considering what costs at individual institutions can be taken out. There is a range of work going on to take out the millions of dollars that have been wasted by Te Pūkenga, which was set up by the previous Government.

Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

11. to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What changes to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act affordability regulations are coming into effect this week?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Good news too: from tomorrow, 31 July, 11 pages of overly prescriptive affordability regulations will no longer be part of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act—commonly referred to as the CCCFA. Primarily, the change will allow Kiwis to get access to the finance they need, when they need it. Many borrowers have been locked out due to the excessive regulation that stopped lenders offering small loans and made it more difficult for families looking to buy their first home. What hasn’t changed is the requirement for lenders to act in a responsible manner, and they will still be liable if they don’t.

Greg Fleming: So why did the regulations need to be changed?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: The regulations treated borrowers like children. Borrowers were required to explain why they did things like buy an occasional coffee, join a gym, or treated the family to fish and chips every now and again—even when they clearly could afford to. Lenders had to do things like check whether the information provided by the applicant regarding their personal expenses was, for example, in line with the living data held by Stats New Zealand.

Greg Fleming: So what protections remain for borrowers under the CCCFA?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Let me be clear: the protections of the CCCFA remain in place. Lenders still have to properly assess loan affordability. Only the 11 pages of overly prescriptive lending regulations are being removed. We have also updated the responsible lending code. There are still stiff penalties for people who do not comply under the CCCFA—including $200,000 for individuals, or up to $600,000 for other entities.

Greg Fleming: What can a borrower do if they have been subject to poor lending practices?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: There are financial dispute resolution services available for all Kiwis. As part of this package of reform, we’re considering ways to improve these services. We have standardised the rules—for example, all schemes are now able to award damages up to $500,000. We want Kiwis to be able to resolve their disputes quickly and easily.

Question No. 12—Environment

12. to the Associate Minister for the Environment: What recent reports, if any, has he seen relating to farmer confidence?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. A few days ago, Federated Farmers released their 31st farm confidence survey. Overall, it showed a weakening of farmer confidence with a net 66 percent of farmers pointing out that current economic conditions are very challenging and that profit margins for many are squeezed. These results underscore the importance of our efforts to get Government spending under control and to put downward pressure on inflation, do the rural banking inquiry through the Primary Production Committee, and for improving the regulatory environment for farmers.

Mark Cameron: What work is he doing in his portfolio to restore farm confidence?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Farmers are still concerned about the cost of regulatory compliance. We have a lot of work to do in this space, but we are doing it. For example, I am fast progressing our work to simplify and reduce costs in freshwater farm planning to provide a robust but affordable way of managing the environmental risks of farming. Officials are out talking to the sector now about what would work, and I’ve asked them to focus on making sure we can recognise the good stuff that farmers are already doing and avoid any duplication with existing farm planning frameworks.

Mark Cameron: What else is he working on that will help boost farm confidence?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Last week I was in South Australia—and I note, to question No. 6, I couldn’t spot a single road cone—viewing the pilot that they are running on an emerging biodiversity credit market. I was able to see different options for how a market might work in New Zealand. The aim of this is to help farmers diversify their income by attracting private funding to support all the work that our farmers are already doing to protect New Zealand’s native biodiversity. To me, this seems a much more sustainable, fairer, and more effective option than stripping property rights off landowners through the use of significant natural areas—something that we’re also addressing for farmers through changes to the National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity.

Mark Cameron: What other engagements has he had that support farmers to protect their natural biodiversity?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: I was in the South Island two weeks ago—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Do you know where it is?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: —looking at a range of pest control programmes—yes, great place to be—that have been supported by the Government, including wilding pines and wallabies. Getting on top of these pests will give a great boost to productivity, or productive farming, and biodiversity. Actions like these, as well as the reform this Government is undertaking in resource management, in fresh water, will go a long way to helping farmer confidence improve, even in these tough economic times.

SPEAKER: A new initiative from today: because I know a lot of members need to leave the House fairly quickly to go to other meetings and other responsibilities, at the end of question time, we’ll have a one-minute wait while people clear the House, but people lingering to have conversations won’t be a welcome thing. That concludes oral questions. [Interruption] It’s not an invitation to have those conversations—just leave the House.