Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the state of the economy?

Last Wednesday, Statistics New Zealand released the latest inflation figures. Members will know that New Zealand has been through a cost of living crisis in recent years, with inflation—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Staying higher for longer.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —being over 7 percent for most of 2022, when I recall the member was the Prime Minister. The latest figures show annual Consumers Price Index inflation falling from 4 percent in the March quarter to 3.3 percent in the June quarter, and quarterly inflation easing from 0.6 percent to 0.4 percent. At 3.3 percent, annual inflation is the lowest it has been for three years, far lower than under the previous Government.

Catherine Wedd: How did inflation compare to the market’s expectations?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, inflation came in lower than most forecasters expected. It is firmly on a downward trajectory, although it is still just outside the target band of 1 to 3 percent. A lot of the unexpected weakness in inflation came from tradeable goods and services, with prices actually falling in the quarter. Non-tradeable inflation is proving stickier, however, with some large increases in items such as insurance and local body rates.

Catherine Wedd: Where will inflation and interest rates go from here?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the market’s expectation and the Reserve Bank’s expectation is that inflation will fall within the 1 to 3 percent target range this calendar year. When the Reserve Bank considers inflation pressure has declined sufficiently, it will begin to cut interest rates. The timing of that is a matter for the bank.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Could have been there already.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: However, market pricing and most analysts expect cuts to start happening in this calendar year. The member opposite is interjecting to say that inflation could have come lower quicker—he’s 100 percent correct. If he hadn’t done so much more wasteful spending, we wouldn’t be here now.

Catherine Wedd: And why—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait. OK.

Catherine Wedd: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why is it so important to have lower interest rates?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Current high interest rates are necessary to get rid of inflation but are a handbrake on the economy. Together with tax relief—which is coming next week—lower inflation and lower interest rates will give New Zealanders the real cost of living relief they deserve. When interest rates fall, the economy will start recovering, which means higher incomes and more jobs.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, and especially our actions to fix Health New Zealand after a botched merger from the previous Government. Kiwis deserve better results in health, which is exactly what we’re focused on delivering. We’re bringing back targets. We’re making a significant investment in front-line services with a record $16.7 billion in this year’s Budget, but that’s not enough. Health New Zealand’s overly centralised operating model and poor financial controls have plagued the organisation since its creation by the previous Government. We’re taking decisive action to fix those problems by installing commissioners and giving them a mandate to deliver New Zealanders the healthcare that they deserve.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did Cabinet approve halving the excise on heated tobacco products?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What we’re interested in is making sure we’ve got practical tools that actually lower smoking rates, and that is one of those things. Heated tobacco products—if we can halve excise tax, we’ll do a 12-month trial, see how it goes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why didn’t the Government announce its decision to halve excise on heated tobacco products?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think it has been announced, and I think you obviously know about it by asking the question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does the Government continue to act in such a secretive manner regarding cigarettes and tobacco, particularly after the Minister responsible was ordered by the Ombudsman to apologise for keeping tobacco and vaping policies secret?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think it’s no secret that we are determined to deliver on Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 goals. We want to see lower rates of smoking across New Zealand. That’s why we’re very proud to see smoking go from 8.6 percent to 6.8 percent in the last 12 months, and we’re going to continue that march.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister: did the Government increase the excise tax on tobacco in December of last year, and who missed it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we absolutely did, because we want to encourage people to move away from smoking, take up vaping, try heated tobacco products to lower smoking rates.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has Cabinet agreed in principle—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hang on. Just wait for a minute. OK.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has Cabinet agreed in principle to allow the sale of smokeless tobacco products such as snus and nicotine pouches; if so, why, and has that been announced?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What we’re interested in is trying all practical tools that get people away from smoking. Heated tobacco products—we’re open for people trying those products. If that gets them away from smoking, that’s a good thing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did the Ministry of Health advise the Government that heated tobacco products would likely compound existing concerns about youth uptake in addition to nicotine products, and that addiction rates for snus can be higher than for smoked tobacco products, and that snus can increase the risk of certain types of cancer?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’d just say to the member is we are determined to lower smoking rates across this country, and what we have done is made sure that by introducing vaping, as happened under the previous Government, we’ve seen a lot of people move away from smoking into vaping. We’re making practical other alternative tools like heated tobacco products available at a lower excise rate. We’re going to try it—do a 12-month trial and see how it goes.

SPEAKER: Just before we do, I just want to say to the Government backbench, do not speak or make noises while a question is being asked.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn’t ask what the Government was trying to achieve; I asked whether the Ministry of Health had advised the Government that, basically, it could increase the uptake of tobacco, increase addiction to tobacco, and increase cancer. The Prime Minister hasn’t addressed that.

SPEAKER: Well, I actually didn’t hear his answer because of some of the noise coming from the left of the House, but I’ll ask the Prime Minister if he wants to add a bit to that answer he did give.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’ll just say to the member, we receive a lot of advice from a lot of officials, but what we’re very determined on is the outcomes and the results, which is lower smoking rates.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister: did Action on Smoking and Health, the four-decade-old campaigners against tobacco smoking, support these measures, thereby enabling us to be able to claim, at the end of this year, “Smokefree 2025, but in 2024”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think that would be absolutely fantastic if we achieve that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which is a greater priority for the Government in its decision making around tobacco: advice from the Ministry of Health and health experts that the Government’s approach would increase addiction—particularly amongst young New Zealanders—and increase the risk of certain types of cancer; or the lobbying of the tobacco industry?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’d say to that member, as I’ve said, is we are determined to deliver on an outcome of less daily smokers in New Zealand. We’re doing that by encouraging vaping. We’re doing that by introducing and supporting heated tobacco products to make sure that, actually, we can lower smoking rates. We’ve got a 12-month trial on it. We’ll review it and see how it goes, but we’re going to do everything to get an outcome.

Question No. 3—Children

3. to the Minister for Children: What recent announcements has she made about addressing youth crime?

Last Saturday, alongside Acting Prime Minister David Seymour, I launched the military-style academy pilot at Te Au Rere youth justice residence in Palmerston North. Ten young males will begin a pilot next Monday, 29 July. This is just one of a number of initiatives that this Government is undertaking to address the issue of serious youth crime and offending in New Zealand. The academy will involve a three-month residential stage in a youth justice residence, followed by a nine-month stage focused on supporting the young people to transition back into the community.

Cameron Luxton: What will the young people do while on the programme?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: This programme is about giving these young people some structure and routine in their lives while also addressing their criminal behaviours. There will be physical activities as well as education and vocational training to prepare them for employment, and, perhaps most importantly, each young person will receive rehabilitation and therapeutic care, as required, based on an in-depth assessment of their needs conducted before starting the programme.

Cameron Luxton: How does the military-style academy pilot differ from previous programmes to address youth crime?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: We have looked at the evidence from previous military-style programmes, both in New Zealand and internationally, to understand what will give these young people taking part the best chance for success, to turn their lives around and prevent them from reoffending. For example, lessons have been learnt from the Military-style Activity Camp programme, and the academy will have much more focus on assessing the young people before starting the programme, to ensure that their individual needs are addressed. There will be a focus on an improved transition back into the community, which will involve family being prioritised, where possible, from the very beginning. The research shows that when family are involved and supportive, the chances of success are much greater.

Cameron Luxton: Will the military-style academy replace other youth justice interventions?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: No. The military-style academy won’t replace other work going on within the youth justice sector. When fully established, the academy will be for a small cohort of young people who have two proven offences punishable by 10 years or more of imprisonment. This means it will be for young people where previous attempts at intervention such as youth aid, diversion, family group conference plans, fast-track, and supervision orders have not worked and these young people have continued to reoffend and create more victims. While these lower-level interventions I mention may work for most young people, this is about adding another tool to the tool kit to reduce crime and victims in our communities, so that New Zealanders can feel safe on the streets.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What does she say to Cara Mackey, who survived abuse in care, who says, “The policies that are being implemented at the moment, such as the reintroduction of bootcamps, are recreating the context in which abuse in State care was allowed to flourish.”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I would say to the young lady that I am sorry for what she has been through. I would also say to the young lady that we have taken learnings from what has happened in the past and we have put processes in place to make sure that those horrendous acts that have happened in the past will not continue. What we cannot continue to do is do nothing. These young people deserve better, and their families deserve better.

Question No. 4—Health

4. to the Minister of Health: What steps has the Government taken to improve the performance of Health New Zealand and to deliver better health outcomes for New Zealanders?

Yesterday, I announced the appointment of a commissioner to Health New Zealand, due to deteriorating performance issues. The issues at Health New Zealand stem from the botched health reforms undertaken over the last two years. This includes Health New Zealand currently overspending at the rate of approximately $130 million a month. This is unsustainable, despite our Government’s record investment in health of $16.68 billion in this year’s Budget. This is a significant intervention which we have not taken lightly, but nothing matters more to this Government than ensuring that our health system delivers better outcomes for all New Zealanders.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What structural and cultural matters have been raised with the Minister, regarding Health New Zealand, that have led to his decision to appoint a commissioner?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The issues at Health New Zealand stem from the mismanaged health reforms which resulted in an overly centralised operating model, limited oversight of financial and non-financial performance, and fragmented administrative data systems which were unable to identify risks until it was too late. Deciding to break up the district health boards and to reform the health system in the middle of a pandemic was always destined to be challenging, and the situation we’re in right now is proof of that. The move to appoint a commissioner comes following concerns raised by numerous bodies, such as the Office of the Auditor-General, the Ministerial Advisory Committee for Health Reform Implementation, the Crown observer we appointed, and the new commissioner himself. We are not afraid to take this action.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What will be the focus of the commissioner?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I have made it clear in my letter of expectation to the commissioner that he is to work to ensure there’s no interruption to delivery of services during this period of recovery and that Government targets and objectives are prioritised. We have appointed the commissioner to reduce the distance between the front line and decision making, streamline unnecessary back-office management and administration, and have a single point of accountability that is laser-focused on patient outcomes for New Zealanders. The commissioner will focus on de-bureaucratisation, putting patient outcomes first, and ensuring that local staff are involved in decision making. This is how we will drive better health outcomes for all New Zealanders.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Which is correct: the Minister’s statement yesterday on Checkpoint that overspend on back-office staff is the cause of Te Whatu Ora’s deficits, or Margie Apa’s statement today that rapid changes in the nursing workforce caused the deficit?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What is correct is that an increase in back-office staff from 2018 to the current time, of 2,500, has contributed to the current financial position.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is he seriously saying that a six-year period’s change in back-office staff suddenly impacted Te Whatu Ora’s books in March of this year?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I’m seriously saying that six years of that Government and two years of a botched reform is seriously affecting where we are now.

Dr Carlos Cheung: How will the decision to employ a commissioner affect front-line staff?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Disconnecting from the front line meant that Health New Zealand was challenged to align its resources with front-line needs. There was inadequate visibility of what was happening at the front line. So a significant part of what we’re doing here is reconnecting with the doctors, nurses, allied health, and other parts of the health workforce. They know best what resources they need, what workforce they need, and how to best flex up and flex down to meet acute need. The commissioner has already taken steps to move decision making closer to the front line and local communities. This move will help to guide better outcomes for patients and empower local staff with decision-making authority.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement that “The Budget we delivered in May was a careful combination of investment in frontline services whilst also continuing to do our bit to keep inflation down”; if so, did she refuse any requests of funding for additional frontline services?

In answer to the first part of the question: yes. And to the second point: there were some proposals from front-line agencies, mostly for capital expenditure, that were not progressed in Budget 2024. By definition, Budgets are about prioritising; they are not about funding everything an agency or Minister might propose. That would be fiscally irresponsible in the extreme. To put it into context for members: the last Labour Government, and the finance Minister thereof—known, I would say, for its excessive spending—even it refused some requests of funding for additional front-line services.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Did she decline a request for funding from Health New Zealand, Treasury, or the Minister of Health for front-line health services such as nurses?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I make two points. The first is this: the decision that our Cabinet made was to put $1.4 billion in additional funding into Health New Zealand for this fiscal year, with additional funding every year thereafter totalling more than $16 billion over three Budgets. I would note that in coming to that figure of $1.4 billion, we had reference to the National Party fiscal plan, but, also, we did use as a comparison the Labour Party fiscal plan, which judged that—

SPEAKER: No, no—that’s enough.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —$1.4 billion was the right amount.

SPEAKER: No, that’s enough. That sort of stuff can’t keep on happening. The Government talks about its own programme. You can make historical comparisons, but not to that extent.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with advice to Cabinet that Health New Zealand are applying “controls to stem the overspending in areas such as recruitment.”, and does this hiring freeze cover front-line health workers like nurses?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We have record numbers of nurses employed in our health system right now. That is the right thing, and that is why we have put more funding in, and that is to support our target to not only just put more money in like the last Government did but to actually drive better health outcomes. If that member wants to get up in this House and defend hiring hundreds and thousands more health bureaucrats while waiting lists got longer, she’s welcome to do so.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists and the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, who said, “At absolute best, this is a ‘treading water’ budget - barely keeping the system’s head above the surface. And the water level is rising.”; or rather that doctors and nurses on the front line are wrong?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, I don’t agree with that because our Government chose to put a record amount of additional funding into the health system because we value front-line health services. In fact, so determined were we to give Health New Zealand confidence about rising budgets into the future that we made pre-commitments against next year’s Budget and the Budget after that as well.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she guarantee that the additional $1.4 billion of savings she wants will not come at the cost of front-line services to patients, given, when adjusted for inflation, total operating health expenditure only increased by 0.4 percent in her Budget?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: A few facts. The first is that that is the expectation that has been outlined by the Minister of Health in his letter of expectation to the commissioner in terms of front-line services not being impacted. Second, I would note that the latest OECD data shows New Zealand’s health spending as a share of GDP is well above the OECD average; our spending per capita is also above the OECD average. In terms of inflation, I would invite the member to reflect on the fact that inflation forecasts have actually eased since she put together a fiscal plan with Labour, and the Budget funding for Health New Zealand cost pressures is higher than it would be if the numbers were recalculated today.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why did her Budget barely provide enough to keep the lights on in health, insufficient funding to achieve at least four of the Government’s five health targets, but prioritised a $2.9 billion tax break for landlords?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Our Budget was very deliberate in the funding of core priorities because our priorities are the same priorities as New Zealanders’. They didn’t want money going into wasteful projects like they did under the last Government—they wanted it going into front-line health services, education services, law and order, and that is where we directed precious additional dollars. It is fair to ask that member to depart from her high horse when she campaigned on exactly the same amount of funding for Health New Zealand as this Government delivered.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

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

Yes, and especially the steps that we are taking to get on top of inflation. From the moment we got into Government, we moved fast to get on top of the cost of living, reining in wasteful spending, slashing through the red tape, and taking costs off businesses. That is good news because our plan is starting to work: inflation is down to 3.3 percent, the lowest in three years; and more good news as personal income tax relief is coming next week for the first time in 14 years, as we campaigned on, letting Kiwis—hard-working Kiwis, the people that the Greens and Labour used to care about—get more of their own money.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister proud—

SPEAKER: Yeah, just don’t get ahead of the House. Just wait for a minute.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister proud that under his Government’s draft emissions reduction plan, in less than a year in office, he’s taken us off track to meet climate targets in 2035 and carbon neutrality by 2050?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I am proud about is our commitment to delivering on net zero 2050. For that to happen, we need to balance the emissions budgets each and every time. Emissions budget 1 has been delivered, emissions budget 2 is being delivered, emissions budget 3 will be delivered, but we have time for that to happen, and the draft for a plan is out there. I encourage people to submit on it.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister explain what “least cost” means in the context of the emissions reduction plan?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Oh my goodness! We are wanting to make sure that we lower our emissions across New Zealand, and we are going to do everything we can to do that. What we are doing is doubling the amount of renewable energy to make sure that we can get things built faster. And I just encourage the Greens—I would love it if the Greens came out and actually cared about emissions, and actually support our fast-track legislation so we can double the amount of renewable electricity in this country and lower our emissions in the process. Please, please join us.

Hon David Seymour: Is reducing emissions at least cost a great improvement on past policies where Governments sought to reduce carbon emissions at a cost many times greater than the emissions trading scheme (ETS) price, or, in other words, chose to take less carbon dioxide out of the air than they could have if they took a least-cost approach?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think reducing a tonne of carbon at the least cost is a good idea.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What is the ETS price?

SPEAKER: We’ll hear from Chlöe Swarbrick.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Who exactly is this plan least cost for, given that his own document lays out that his Government’s over-reliance on market mechanisms like the emissions trading scheme will cost the lowest-income New Zealanders four times as much money as the wealthiest in this country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just say to that member, if you cared about working New Zealanders you would support our tax relief plan because that actually would support low-income working New Zealanders. But we are determined to deliver on our emissions commitments, and we’ll continue to do so.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Ministry for the Environment and Treasury have estimated that this country is potentially liable for anywhere near $24 billion if we fail to meet our Paris Agreement obligations to 2030—that is 6 years from now—which his Government’s decisions are demonstrably making it harder to do?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I would just say to you: we’re going to work incredibly hard to deliver on the emissions commitments that we have made. Nationally Determined Contribution 2030 is tough, but the previous administration signed us up to it and made it incredibly difficult and didn’t deliver against it or make progress against it. We’re going to work hard to do so.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How exactly does the Government’s strategy for credible markets supporting the climate transition align with the Government’s Budget decision to shred funding for the emissions trading scheme and the recent failure of the ETS auction?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just say to the member, the member may not understand but what we are trying to do is to make sure that we deliver on our climate change emissions targets and goals. The way in which we go about it may be different from the previous administration, but we’re going to do it our way to deliver those commitments.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Prime Minister believe the Government has a responsibility to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, it’s our founding document.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will he then commit to voting against the proposed Treaty principles bill at second reading?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our position has been very clear on that, as discussed in our coalition agreements.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is it appropriate for a Minister who clearly has no understanding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to be directing Pharmac to ignore the Treaty?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What is appropriate is that the Minister responsible for Pharmac is ensuring that every New Zealander can get access to drugs, irrespective of whether they’re Māori or non-Māori. It’s about making sure we open up and get more drugs. And what I’ll just say is, compared to the previous administration, which failed to fund core Pharmac needs to the tune of $1.8 billion, we found 54 new medicines at $600 million to improve the lot of 175,000 Kiwis. I’d stand on our side to focus on improving health outcomes for Māori and non-Māori, and, particularly, the Pharmac Minister’s doing a great job.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is repealing Māori wards, which the tribunal ruled breaches the principle of partnership and our right to representation, an example of his Government honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree with the characterisation of that question. All three parties in the coalition Government oppose the creation of Māori wards. We’re making this a decision for local communities. And if they wish to create them, they can; if they don’t, they won’t.

Rawiri Waititi: Are policies such as the Fast-track Approvals Bill, the Treaty principles bill, the removal of section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act, the ministerial alienation of te reo Māori, and the disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority examples of the Government’s honouring of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, there was a lot in that question. What I’d say to you is, actually, the fast-track legislation I would encourage Te Pāti Māori to get behind as well, because we want better outcomes, we want to build things and actually grow our economy.

Rawiri Waititi: How does he reconcile removing section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act, which will alienate tamariki Māori from their whakapapa and lead to more harm in State care, with the report on historical abuse in State care being introduced this week?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are prioritising the health and wellbeing of the individual child—that is the primary consideration with the change that has been made.

Question No. 7—Transport

7. to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about fixing potholes?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last week, I announced that the New Zealand Transport Agency is delivering on our commitment to introduce pothole repair targets that will ensure a greater number of pesky potholes on our State highways are identified and fixed within 24 hours. Our Government’s pothole repair targets include 95 percent of potholes on high volume national and arterial State highways to be repaired within 24 hours of identification, and 85 percent of potholes on regional, primary collector, and secondary collector State highways repaired within 24 hours of identification. Under this Government, we’re getting transport back to basics, maintaining our roads so Kiwis can get where they need to go quickly and safely.

Carl Bates: How is the Government funding pothole repairs and prevention on our State highways?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, our Government has established pothole prevention activity class for both State highways and local roads to ring-fence critical maintenance spending to resealing, rehabilitation, and drainage maintenance work within the National Land Transport Fund. Already, we have delivered a record $2.07 billion for State highway pothole prevention over the next three years. That’s a 91 percent increase in funding compared to the previous three years under Labour. Kiwis want potholes fixed, roads properly maintained; we’re getting transport back to basics so Kiwis can get where they need to go quickly and safely.

Carl Bates: What investment is the Government making in pothole prevention on local roads?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, whenever I travel around New Zealand, I’m constantly reminded by New Zealanders about the need to fix our local roads too. And that’s why our Government is supporting local councils with a record $1.9 billion for local road pothole prevention over the next three years—a 50 percent increase in funding to prevent potholes from forming in the first place. This includes a 74 percent increase in funding for Auckland Council, a 61 percent increase for the Bay of Plenty, an 83 percent increase for Nelson, and a 38 percent increase for Canterbury. We are getting transport back to basics so Kiwis can get where they need to go quickly and safely.

Carl Bates: What does this mean for local roads in Whanganui?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, good news for the good, hard-working people of Whanganui. As part of the pothole prevention fund, there’s $132 million for local road pothole prevention in the Manawatū-Whanganui region, a 38 percent increase compared to the previous three years. This Government is getting on with the task of getting transport back to basics.

Rt Hon Christopher Luxon: 0800 what?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: And to answer the Prime Minister’s question, if you’re on our State highway network and you do see a pothole, please call 0800 444 449 to get those potholes fixed.

Question No. 8—Health

8. to the Associate Minister of Health: Is it correct that annual returns submitted to the Ministry of Health show $4,044,956.49 worth of heated tobacco products were sold in New Zealand in 2022, and that $3,924,816.06 of those sales were by the tobacco company Philip Morris?

No, those numbers are not correct.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that the vast majority of heated tobacco products sold in New Zealand in 2022 were by the tobacco company Philip Morris?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Yes, it is.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that Philip Morris is the only company whose vaping products did not have child safety mechanisms when Cabinet took the decision to delay requirements for child safety mechanisms to be on vapes from March 2024 to October 2024?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I don’t have the information on which products didn’t meet the criteria.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that her decision to halve the excise tax on heated tobacco and delay safety requirements on vapes benefit only the tobacco company Philip Morris?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I will state clearly, as we seem to be relitigating this issue and we’ve traversed it thoroughly, that we are committed to achieving Smokefree Aotearoa 2025. I will yet again confirm that we are choosing to do a programme of work that will ensure that there are tools available to achieve the target audience quitting smoking. We will continue to do so. There is no relationship with the tobacco industry. We are committed to a programme of work, and we will achieve Smokefree Aotearoa 2025—highly likely that will be achieved this year.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why won’t she put as much effort into improving the health of New Zealanders as she will into helping Philip Morris?

SPEAKER: Just hang on a minute. You might like to—take a seat—reword that question. It’s a pretty big accusation, and I think you need to back it up in some way, more than just a pot-shot supplementary question. There are other ways you could ask that question.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. The way that I heard that question, and it was certainly written down, given that I saw it beforehand, was making no accusation whatsoever. Through the previous supplementary questions, it was established that the company Philip Morris benefits quite substantially from policy decisions made by this Government. On that basis, flowing on from those supplementaries, I’d say that that supplementary was entirely appropriate.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s a position that you could reach; from the answers to those questions, I’m sure some members of the public will do so, but to stand up and make the accusation using the words “why are you” and then relating it to a particular action that may or may not be the case is not reasonable. There are other ways to ask that question.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Can the Minister name a single thing she has done for the health of New Zealanders that is greater than the benefits she has provided for Philip Morris?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The Opposition seem to be fixated on tobacco companies. They seem to have lost sight of the people we are trying to help, which is those who are currently smoking. They ignore the fact that the first thing I did as a Minister was raise excise tax, and that we are continuing to meet with quit-smoking groups to ensure they have the best tools. The main audience for this change are the quit-smoking providers, all of whom I will be meeting with over the next month to discuss the best way to continue to reduce smoking rates and achieve our smoke-free 2025 target.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister: is it a fact that this question is set in 2022, five years after the Labour Party was in Government, which demonstrates that they did sweet Fanny Adams about this issue when they were in power?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I will confirm that we are operating on advice to achieve a smoking target. The numbers that the members from across the House were quoting were unrelated to the figures as they currently are. We are at 6.8 percent smokers as at the end of 2023, and we are continuing to track down.

Question No. 9—Social Development and Employment

9. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What changes has the Government made to support young people into work?

Last week, I announced that 4,000 additional job seekers aged 18 to 24 will receive support from a case manager over the phone. Fifteen hundred young people were receiving this new service at the beginning of July, and the roll-out to 4,000 young job seekers will be complete in two months. This is one of the many actions the Government is taking to make the welfare system more proactive and to support people into work, because we are not prepared to accept the current forecasts that under-25-year-olds on a jobseeker benefit will spend two decades of their life on welfare.

Rima Nakhle: Why is the Government providing young job seekers this additional support now?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The challenging economic situation that we have inherited means that job seeker numbers were always due to increase and to peak at the start of 2025. We know that young job seekers are more vulnerable to tougher labour market conditions, and we want the welfare system to proactively help as many job seekers as possible in the current economic climate. Getting more direct help to young people now will mean they are better prepared to enter the workforce and take up job opportunities as they arise.

Rima Nakhle: How will phone-based case management work for young people?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Ministry of Social Development (MSD) case managers will contact young job seekers at least once every 28 days. There will be a set appointment time for the phone call. Having a case manager means that young people will have tailored advice and support that suits their unique circumstances. This additional support of course comes with obligations. If a young person misses their assigned phone appointment without good reason, an obligation failure will be initiated, which may result in a sanction.

Rima Nakhle: Is phone-based case management the only action the Government has taken to make the welfare system more proactive at supporting people into work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No. We have set out our expectations that, along with the additional support we are providing, there will be consequences, including sanctions when people fail to fulfil their obligations to become work-ready and to take steps to find work. We are also requiring those with work obligations to have a work-focused appointment in their first two weeks of being on benefit, and if they’re still on benefit after six months, they will need to meet MSD again. The Government believes that work is the best pathway to independence and to further opportunities, and we will continue to take more actions over the coming months to support more New Zealanders into work.

Question No. 10—Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti

10. to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: Does he believe that the Government has a responsibility to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

on behalf of the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: On behalf of the Minister, yes, recognising that there will always be a wide variety of opinions as to what that means in practice and in every particular situation, and also recognising, in doing so, the need never to lose sight of the basic expectations of people living in a modern democratic society of equality before the law and equal say in matters affecting their lives.

Rawiri Waititi: How does the Minister for Māori Crown relations feel being wheeled out by this Government to answer a question that was directed to the Prime Minister, simply because he is Māori, and the Prime Minister wants to distance himself from the responsibilities of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: On behalf of the Minister—

SPEAKER: Sorry, hang on. You can answer the question, but I’d just make the point that Standing Orders makes it very clear that the Government collectively decides who is going to answer a question. Now, to describe the Minister as being “wheeled out” kind of implies something that is contrary to Standing Orders. He can answer the question, but I think those questions need to be a little more cleverly put.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: On behalf of the Minister, I stand with great pride.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister think that attending a close relation’s tangi is a case of being wheeled out of this Parliament, as has been put by that last idiotic questioner?

SPEAKER: No, that’s not a question he can answer; it’s a point that’s made.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. We ask that decorum be restored to this House. While it may be one person’s opinion—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute. Sorry, we’ve got a point of order going on. You can start again, please.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Thank you. We ask that we have a recall on the word “idiotic”, if we can be really direct.

SPEAKER: Well, I’ve ruled the question out. So it’s, effectively, gone. Is there another supplementary question?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Yes. Does the Minister for Crown relationships: Te Arawhiti believe that ongoing colonisation is good for Te Tiriti o Waitangi partners?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: On behalf of the Minister, I’m not sure what the member means by “ongoing colonisation”. We are a country. That is our history. The focus of this Government is to rectify the problems that have come alongside colonisation and to build on the many successes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister: do two of the top three in this Parliament who have got Māori background—

Rawiri Waititi: Or blood quantum-ing.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —or the highest percentage of Māori and Pasifika in a Cabinet, or the highest percentage in the country, in terms of Parliament, represent progress or the kind of retard comment we’ve just heard?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute. A point of order is called.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: It is unparliamentary to—

SPEAKER: Sorry, just wait. The House is getting a little unruly.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: The history of the word “retarded” is bad enough to be hearing in the House. In fact, people have endured years of abuse because of that very name. It is unparliamentary for a Minister of that seniority and age group to be saying that in the House. Please, within your powers, stop that type of language in this House.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m sure you wouldn’t want me to rule on the basis of an ageist comment. But I would ask the Minister to withdraw the word used.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw the word used.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Shortly after Debbie Ngarewa-Packer asked to restore decorum to the House, her colleague Rawiri Waititi was heard to shout out “What blood quantum are you?” Now, Mr Speaker, if we’re going to restore decorum to the House, I think Te Pāti Māori know everything that they have to do. Could I just point out it’s at least four times you’ve had to reprimand them for not knowing the Standing Orders today; perhaps you could give them some lessons in your office after question time.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Well, may I just respond to the point of order. I think getting into the House, going into a tit for tat of who said what, when a lot of it is just interjection, would see us here for some hours. If he’s interested—presumably all questions are directed at the Chair—98 percent Scots-Irish and 1 percent Middle Eastern: me.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. We respect that the Deputy Prime Minister has withdrawn the word but you did ask for an apology. We are waiting for that.

SPEAKER: No, no, I did not ask for an apology.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: You did say “withdraw and apologise”, right?

SPEAKER: No, I did not. So, was there a question that you’re still wanting to answer, Paul Goldsmith?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, yes—in relation to the question that was asked, I reassert the answer to the original question that, of course, it identifies that there’s a wide variety of views amongst Māori on what it exactly means to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi, and this Government is committed to doing just that.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Just to the Minister Goldsmith, if I may, are you on the record as having said that, on balance, colonisation was good for us, and, that being the case, might that be the way in which you will approach the role and anything pertaining to colonisation of—

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Questions are not directly asked to Ministers; they’re asked through the Chair. Do you have a point of order?

Hon Chris Bishop: You’ve made my point for me.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, on behalf of the Minister for Māori Crown Relations, I didn’t make those comments because I’m answering in relation to another Minister.

Question No. 11—Police

11. to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by his statement relating to his position as Minister of Police, “Absolutely, I stand by my statement that if people haven’t seen a change, then I should leave and someone else should come in”?

Yes. In December, I laid out my expectations to Police. I’m very proud of our police and they have responded strongly. They are focused on the policing of gangs and stopping them from taking over public roads, towns, and intimidating and abusing members of the public. In Ōpōtiki last year, we saw the Mongrel Mob take over the town. Schools were closed, roads were closed, and the town was, effectively, held under siege. This year’s anniversary of that event was policed proactively, whereby law-abiding members of the community had their rights protected over and above those of gang members. Under this Government, boy racers and antisocial road users are now facing a strong and coordinated police response, with the necessary resources to deal with unlawful and disruptive behaviour. Hugely successful operations were recently run across the country, including the Hutt and Wellington, where the Eagle helicopter was used to deter around 300 vehicles from gathering to disrupt the public. Police seized dozens of vehicles and hundreds of infringement notices were issued. Under this Government, there has been an increase in police on the beat in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch, providing reassurance and visibility. The public response to that has been overwhelmingly positive across the country, and I’m pleased that police are providing reassurance to communities and keeping people safer. Under this Government, the police have established a national gang unit and are setting up gang disruption units in districts, which will target gang members and make life extremely difficult for them. Under this Government, Minister Costello is leading work on delivering 500 more police, and we continue to move at pace to pass legislation banning gang patches and providing police with more tools to disburse and disrupt gang gatherings.

SPEAKER: Well, the whole three years will be up if we keep going with that. So—thank you.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How, then, does he explain the 18 percent of New Zealanders feeling less safe as a result of the Government’s law and order policies and 58 percent saying they make no difference at all, as recorded by a One News poll?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I think it tells me that we’ve still got a lot more work to do, and, thanks to that member, we inherited a shambles, but we are committed to fixing that.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How does he propose to make New Zealanders feel safer when there are 124 fewer police officers in New Zealand than when he took office?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I’ve already laid out for the member that this incoming Government (1) funded the Police properly, because the previous Government hadn’t; and (2) we’ve funded 500 additional police officers, and we are on track to deliver those 500 additional police officers.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How does he propose to make New Zealanders feel safer when the National Gang Unit he announced would be operational by 1 July was not stood up by that date and now has only five staff members in it?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, the National Gang Unit is an announcement that the commissioner is responsible for, and they are standing that up. And, just to put the member’s mind at rest, the Police in the last six months have already had a very strong response in terms of how they deal with gangs, as I’ve just outlined for her. Under the previous Government, we saw provincial towns being taken over by gangs. We saw communities fearful. That’s not happening now. We saw gang tangis and gang convoys that were taking over public roads and intersections, that were driving into oncoming cars, that were abusing members of the public—that’s not happening under this Government, because there has been a very strong response by police.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How does he propose to make New Zealanders feel safer when Police have advised him they will be pulling out of family violence now and this will be done “regardless of the readiness of partner agencies” and Police have warned him in briefings that this could result in “threat to life”?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I think it’s very irresponsible for the member to come into this House and tell the country that Police have said they are withdrawing from family harm incidents. That is not true. Police will always have a role, and they will always respond to family harm incidents that involve domestic violence or where there is clearly an offence being committed. But I can tell the member that I was on night shift myself in Auckland recently, where police were called to a job where it was a mother and a daughter arguing over an iPhone charger. Now, I’m sorry; having uniformed police officers standing in someone’s lounge room trying to settle an argument between a mother and daughter over an iPhone charger is not a good use of police time. There are other agencies that will step up and deal with some of those issues. I want police back on their core business. I want police doing the job so that when members of the public put their hand up and they want help, there are police officers who are able to respond to them instead of having to deal with all the social issues that this country has, and there’s a much better response for a lot of those people from other agencies, and not the Police.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, you’re all done.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Oh, point of order, sorry.

Hon Ginny Andersen: I seek leave to table the Official Information Act document I’ve received, that’s not publicly available, that stipulates Police advising the Minister of Police that there is risk of loss of life if police pull out of family violence call-outs without partner agencies being in place.

SPEAKER: The paper’s not proactively released by Police?

Hon Ginny Andersen: No, it’s not.

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

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

Question No. 12—Health

12. to the Minister of Health: In what specific sectors of Te Whatu Ora has overspending occurred, and was this raised with him in the last eight months of the Crown observer appointment?

The Government appointed a Crown observer in December, given our longstanding concerns about the implementation of the health reforms that created Health New Zealand. The Crown observer has highlighted numerous issues to me, including a lack of focus on the current financial situation, particularly in the hospital sector. Hospitals are a critical sector in the health system and is one reason why this Government has taken significant action by appointing a commissioner to ensure all New Zealanders get timely access to quality healthcare.

Hūhana Lyndon: How will slashing up to 3,000 jobs from the organisation that employs doctors and nurses help to get more doctors and nurses on the front line to serve our people?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The commissioner has expressed that we will streamline the back-office staff that are not directly patient facing so that we can redistribute funds towards the front line and deliver better outcome for New Zealanders.

Hūhana Lyndon: Does he accept that the overall health Budget funding has actually reduced by 4.5 percent per capita, and, if so, will he increase funding to sustainable levels so that our health system isn’t on its knees?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I accept is the biggest contribution to health of roughly $16.67 billion across three Budgets in our last Budget.

Hūhana Lyndon: Does he really think that a relentless focus on cost savings for our new commissioner is what he should be looking for when our health system is chronically underfunded and does not deliver for those who are most in need?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I think is that it’s important to deliver timely access to quality healthcare for New Zealanders to improve life expectancy and quality of life.

Hūhana Lyndon: What will he say to senior doctors this weekend at the GP conference who have told us this morning that they are doing administrative tasks themselves because the back-office staff reductions at Te Whatu Ora are impacting them?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I will do is thank them for their work and tell them that this Government backs them and that we’re looking at ways to ameliorate some of the issues that they’re raising with us. That’s what I’ll say to them.

Hūhana Lyndon: Will the Minister make a promise to New Zealanders right now, in this Whare, that he will never prioritise any part of our public health system?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The Government policy statement, which I’ve announced, explores a wide range of actions that this Government will take, including what that member is asking now.