Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has she made about personal income tax?

In the Budget, I announced an adjustment to personal income tax thresholds. Thresholds will rise from $14,000 to $15,600, from $48,000 to $53,500, and from $70,000 to $78,100. The effect of these increases is to reduce a person’s income tax by up to $40 a fortnight. The changes will apply from 31 July. They are the first positive changes to personal income rates or thresholds for 14 long years.

Sam Uffindell: What other tax relief was announced in the Budget?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: From 31 July, the in-work tax credit, which helps support low to middle income working families with children, will increase by $50 a fortnight. Depending on their family size and income, working families will therefore get up to $50 a fortnight extra. Eligibility for the independent earner tax credit has also been extended, from $48,000 a year to $70,000 a year of income. This credit is for people who do not get a benefit or Working for Families—the squeezed middle, if you will. Extending the credit will help an estimated 420,000 additional people, most of whom will get the full $20 a fortnight. This, of course, is on top of the new FamilyBoost childcare payment I announced in March that will give parents and caregivers up to 25 percent back in their early childhood education fees to a maximum of $150 a fortnight. We on this side of the House are proud to have given tax relief to hard-working New Zealanders. Members opposite voted against it.

Sam Uffindell: How much will people receive in tax relief?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Budget material contains various scenarios. For example, a couple earning an average household income of $125,000 will benefit by up to $102 a fortnight. People’s individual and family circumstances differ widely, however, which is why there is a tax calculator on the Budget website, which I’m advised more than 400,000 New Zealanders have visited. Treasury modelling shows that an estimated 727,000 households will benefit by at least $75 a fortnight; 187,000 will benefit by at least $100 a fortnight. On average, households with children will benefit by $78 a fortnight. I’ve occasionally heard people say that tax relief only benefits the well-off. Well, they are misinformed. Our changes to the in-work tax credit and introduction of FamilyBoost tilt the benefits of the tax package to low to middle income working families with children.

Sam Uffindell: How is this tax relief funded?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, tax relief in this Budget puts $3.7 billion a year back into the pockets of New Zealanders. As the Budget documents clearly show, this tax relief is fully funded by $3.7 billion of offsetting savings and revenue measures. This funding is broadly as set out in the National Party’s fiscal plan, with a handful of changes to reflect coalition commitments. As it is fully funded, there is no borrowing for tax relief. We have made the savings so New Zealanders can have more in their bank accounts.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, and especially this Government’s decision to fund an additional $604 million in medicines for Pharmac. Every New Zealander knows someone, a friend or a family, who has been affected by cancer and is fighting it, and we made a promise at the election we would support them in their fight and we are keeping that promise. This Government is funding 26 treatments for cancer as part of a package of 54 more medicines, supporting around 175,000 New Zealanders in the first year of the policy, and we are very proud of that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How many Kiwi families will be disadvantaged over the next three years as a result of his Government’s decision to abolish the First Home Grant?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again—we’ve spoken about this before. We have decided to make sure that we can access 1,500 more community housing provider spaces rather than continuing with a programme that actually was not as effective as other options for that money.

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

No, it was a very specific question. I think an answer to the question would be helpful.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: If the member would like to put that question in writing, I will give him a proper answer.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he not know how many people will be disadvantaged by the First Home Grant being abolished, or does he not care?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: There was about 7,000 people from memory, but I want to be able to give you a proper answer.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the contract for the purchase of two new inter-island ferries been formally terminated; if so, what penalties did KiwiRail have to pay to terminate the contract?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, they’re ongoing commercial conversations between KiwiRail and the provider, but what I’d say to that member is we are not going to do what that previous Government did, which is basically say to the New Zealand people we’ll build you a house for $750,000 and it costs $3.2 million.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. Mr Speaker, there were two parts to the question. One was whether the contract had been terminated and the other was whether there were any penalties. The Prime Minister hasn’t addressed either of those. You could argue he’s addressed the second one by saying that it’s commercially sensitive—or couldn’t release that commercially—but whether or not there’s still a contract in place cannot be commercially sensitive.

SPEAKER: Well, that would be for the Prime Minister to determine, but the Prime Minister may wish to expand or to re-answer the question.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: KiwiRail have repudiated the contract, but there’s ongoing commercial conversations.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

Supplementary, Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: He’s had three.

SPEAKER: I know that, I know that—but, look, sorry, we’ve been through this before.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yeah, I know, but you were wrong then and you’re wrong now.

SPEAKER: Tell you what, it’s not a good idea to start the conversation from your seat like that. This is how it’s operated for quite a number of years and we’re going to continue.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the contract been formally terminated?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: They are subject to commercial conversations.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could you, Prime Minister, let us know as to whether or not the person asking these questions, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, right now, saw the contract about which he is demanding now to know more information?

SPEAKER: No, that’s not a question that the Prime Minister can answer.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, I’m asking him to confirm whether he knows that or not. That’s not difficult, is it?

SPEAKER: Oh, I see. OK.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It’s axiomatic. If we’re talking details, we need to know what we’re talking about, and I want to know whether this Prime Minister here has been told that the previous Prime Minister saw that contract.

Very good. Ask the question again so we’re all clear what it is.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Right, very slowly: Prime Minister, has the previous Prime Minister advised you or anyone in your Cabinet that he saw the contract about which he is now complaining?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, you’d have to assume he has, but the bottom line is he didn’t manage the contract and we saw a massive cost blowout from $750 million to $3.2 billion and rising—another piece of the Labour Government’s economic mismanagement.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the Prime Minister aware of which Minister announced the deal to buy two new mega-ferries; if so, who was it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I have no recall on that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister been told—

SPEAKER: Just a minute. We’ll wait till you get a fair go from the whole House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I quite agree. Has the Prime Minister been advised as to the Minister who made the announcement that two ferries were to be purchased, but what was the prescription that was put around at the time, not as being described erroneously to the media by the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m sure—knowing that Minister, how financially responsible he is and how well bounded he is—it would have been very well framed. But subsequent, what I’d say is that Government let it get out of control.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That answer from the Prime Minister simply cannot be compatible with the answer he gave immediately previous to that where he said he didn’t know who the Minister was when he’s now subsequently answered a question defending Winston Peters, who, of course, was the Minister who set up that deal.

Well, I think you made your point. You get another supplementary.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he guarantee that any new inter-island ferries purchased will cost less than the contracted purchase price of the two ferries the Government has cancelled the order for?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, what I can guarantee and reassure that member about is that this Government knows how to run economics. We know how to manage projects, right? Unlike that Government, who somehow thought it was perfectly reasonable to go spend $750 million, which turns into $3.2 billion and rising. You have no economic credentials, no economic record; you haven’t been able to deliver a pizza, let alone ferries.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Prime Minister is so great on economics, I’m sure he can answer the question, which is whether the new ferries are going to be more expensive than the ferries that he cancelled the contract for.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I can tell you it’s going to be a lot less than $3.2 billion.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Prime Minister confirm that by the time Project iReX was repudiated, the cost of the ferries themselves was only 21 percent of the total project cost; that is, the garage was going to cost four times as much as the ship that was going in it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I can; 80 percent of the cost were now associated with port redevelopments in Wellington and Picton, for big ships that actually didn’t work.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Yes, I do, and especially this Government’s work to take action on housing, including by freeing up the rules on granny flats. I’m particularly proud that we’re consulting on how those rules can enable Māori communities to develop papakāinga and kaumātua housing on their own land. After years of neglect that saw the number of Kiwis living in emergency motels spike, we’re taking action to deliver more choices on housing and more opportunities for Kiwis to get into a home of their own.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is his response to native Hawaiians who are urging New Zealand to withdraw from the Rim of the Pacific Exercise (RIMPAC), which provides a forum for Israel to sell surveillance equipment and military training to other countries, and—

Hon Shane Jones: Oh, tell us about Manurewa.

SPEAKER: Listen—just a minute. Those outbursts are not helpful. When a question is being asked, the House is silent. Now, the member gets quite a degree of leeway with other interjections, so let’s not transgress into the land of the question. Please start again.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Thank you. What is his response to native Hawaiians who are urging New Zealand to withdraw from RIMPAC, which provides a forum for Israel to sell surveillance equipment and military training to other countries and directly profit from destruction of their native lands?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I haven’t seen those comments.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he accept that participating in these military exercises with Israel makes New Zealand complicit in Israel’s war crimes in Palestine?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just say to the member I’m not sure what she’s referencing, but I’m very happy to take further questions on it and come back with a more considered answer.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What does he believe New Zealand’s role is in upholding the human rights of our Pacific neighbours in Kanaky and West Papua who are fighting for their lives against oppressive colonial occupations?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I’d say to that member is that I have—you know, the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) is the central body by which Pacific leaders resolve Pacific challenges. On all of those issues, we try and use the centrality of PIF as the reason by which we resolve our regional issues, and we’ll continue to do that when we meet together in Tonga at the Pacific Island leaders’ forum.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What action, if any, will his Government take against Indonesia for their role in killing over 500,000 West Papuans in the last 60 years?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, we have a series of regional architecture where we raise regional issues and we develop regional solutions to those issues.

Rawiri Waititi: How can he justify cutting the minimum wage subsidy for workers with disabilities when it will lead to hundreds of disabled workers being paid less than the minimum wage—some as low as $2 per hour further?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, what we want to do is make sure that, actually, disabled people who want to work can work. Many of them actually receive the minimum wage today, but for those that are more severely disabled that actually want to participate in work, we want to encourage them to be able to do so. There’s obviously other support packages that are available to people from the system.

Rawiri Waititi: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait. Thank you.

Rawiri Waititi: What is his response to organisations like the Auckland City Mission, who will need to cut annual food parcels to families in need from 50,000 to 20,000 at a time when food insecurity is at an all-time high as a result of this Government’s Budget?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that has been a function of a significant uplift of spending through the COVID period that was time-limited, and those funds have now come to an end. What we are doing incredibly hard in this Government is to make sure that we actually deal with the underlying cause of the challenges, which is inflation. We want to drive inflation down so we can drive interest rates down so we can grow the economy and keep people in work.

Rawiri Waititi: Can he name any reports or evidence he has seen that shows policies such as the three-strikes legislation, military boot camps, and longer sentences will reduce crime rates in Aotearoa?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I can tell you the last six years showed us that carrying on doing more of the same didn’t work, and those results are utterly unacceptable. No New Zealander wants to see a 33 percent increase in violent crime, a 100 percent increase in retail crime, a quadrupling of ram raids. This Government is determined to try things and do things differently to get different results. We make no apologies for being tough on crime and being tough on making sure we support young people who need to change the course of their lives.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister as to whether he has seen any evidence that those on disability and being supported by the State were happy to receive the employment rates that they were getting until the previous Government interfered with it, and, consequently, so many of those disabled people then lost their job?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the thing is we want to make sure that employers are encouraged to take on disabled people who want to be able to work, but, again, we have other support services through the beneficiary system to support those people.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he agree with the evidence that shows that increased poverty and economic inequality is the leading cause of increased crime rates?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, I missed the last word in that question?

SPEAKER: “Crime rates”.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Crime rates—oh, right. Well, what I can tell you is that accepting that crime as it is not acceptable to this Government. We actually are saying there is a major problem in crime in New Zealand. After six years of a “soft on crime” Government, we’re going to do something very different about it. So, yes, we’re going to continue to work on poverty by making sure we rebuild this economy, lower the cost of living, and actually grow the joint, and we’re going to make sure that we restore law and order so New Zealanders feel safe in their homes, their businesses, and their communities.

Question No. 4—Health

4. to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has the Government made about increasing access to medicines?

Yesterday, the Government delivered on our commitment to fund more cancer treatments, with an unprecedented and transformative investment in cancer and other treatments. This substantial injection will allow Pharmac to fund up to 26 cancer treatments alongside a further 28 other treatments. Increasing access to vital medicines is the right thing to do. I want to thank Associate Minister of Health the Hon David Seymour for his role in this announcement, and also New Zealand First, whose coalition agreement included increasing the Pharmac budget each year.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What does this transformational announcement mean for New Zealanders?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Up to 175,000 New Zealanders will benefit from the overall expanded package of up to 54 medicines in the first year alone. The announcement means that not only will treatments for all the cancer types in the pre-election manifesto list be covered but also a number of other treatments, including for blood cancers and other tumours. This major announcement adds to a number of other cancer announcements that we have already made. We have set a target of 90 percent of patients to receive cancer management within 31 days of the decision to treat. We have also increased breast-screening eligibility to 74-year-olds; funded PET scanning accessibility for pathology, like prostate cancer; expanded infusion services in Whanganui; invested in the new radiotherapy machine at Whangārei Hospital; and provided an extra $18 million a year to help people who need to travel for cancer treatments.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What are the next steps to ensure New Zealanders can access these treatments?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: As a Government, we have worked hard to ensure that this announcement was not just one of new funding but also one of delivery. We had to make sure that we got the implementation right. That is why further funding to deliver and administer these new treatments has been made available for both Pharmac and Health New Zealand, further to our record investment of $16.68 billion into health as part of Budget 2024. New Zealanders should expect to see some of the newly funded cancer treatments become available from October-November this year, with more being phased in over the next year. This announcement shows that we’re a Government committed to delivering on health, and specifically around cancer, which we know impacts many New Zealanders and their families each year.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What feedback has the Minister seen about this announcement?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The feedback that we have received has been overwhelmingly positive. Patient Voice Aotearoa chair Malcolm Mulholland has called this announcement a “game-changer” and “fantastic news for patients”, saying that he is chuffed that 175,000 Kiwis will get access to the medicines that they so desperately need. Patient advocate Melissa Vining has said that she is “just so happy that patients won’t have to face that burden of mortgaging their homes or setting up a Givealittle [page] to receive treatment that is available in comparable countries.” Rachael Hart, chief executive of the Cancer Society of New Zealand, says that “This is a momentous day for New Zealand.”, and other front-line oncologists have described this announcement as “truly a historic level of investment”.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement that “I can swear, better times are ahead”; if so, how many additional people will be unemployed in 2025 according to her Budget?

To the first part of the question, yes. It is a particularly difficult time right now for New Zealanders, as high interest rates are required to bring down the rampant inflation that flourished in 2022 and 2023, but the economy will pick up and better times are ahead. To the second part of the question, there is no information in the Budget update itself about the number of people forecast to be unemployed. It does show forecasts, however, of the rate of unemployment, which has been rising since 2021. However, to be helpful, I am advised that Treasury’s background forecasts not contained within the Budget show that the number of people unemployed in the September quarter of 2025 is expected to be 1,000 fewer than the number of people unemployed in the September quarter of 2024, and that, after that, the number of people unemployed continues to decline each quarter out to the end of the forecast period. I can swear better times are ahead.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: How can better times be ahead for the 204,000 people who will be on jobseeker support when those people see no benefit of the tax cuts and there is nothing in the Budget for beneficiaries?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as I’ve just articulated, if the member listened, the number of people unemployed is set to decline between the September quarter of this year and next year, which is good news, I would have thought, by any read. I think perhaps what the member may be referring to is the spectacular achievement of the outgoing Government, which managed to have job seeker numbers increasing even while unemployment was reducing. Well, on this side of the House, we view it as an achievement to support people into work, and that is what Louise Upston is working very hard on doing.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Are better times ahead for the approximately 140,000 children who are currently in poverty and the additional 20,000 children who will be in poverty as a result of her Budget?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, when you look at the child poverty report, it shows quite clearly that the rate of child poverty by one measure will reduce because of the initiatives in our Budget. What it also shows is that when you deliver tax relief to lower and middle income families with children, those households have more income as a result, and that is good for those kids. I just wish members opposite weren’t so hard-hearted that they voted against that relief.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm that expenditure on welfare, excluding New Zealand super, is $18 billion or thereabouts, and only the Labour Party would describe that as nothing in the Budget for beneficiaries?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, on that side of the House with the Labour Party, they believe that the sign of success—

SPEAKER: No, no, no—the Minister can’t answer for another party. The Minister can only answer the first part of that question.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: A very good question. Actually, on this side of the House, what we believe is that the sign of success is how many people you help into employment, not simply how much you spend on servicing their unemployment.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Are better times ahead for first-home buyers when their hopes of buying a home have been stripped by this Budget?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I completely reject the characterisation in the member’s question.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Are better times ahead when the New Zealand Construction Industry Council’s Tommy Honey has said, “We’re going to see a lot more construction companies at risk of going to the wall if they can’t get the work that they’ve been getting over the last few years.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, there are a couple of things going on here. The first is that, as the member knows, interest rates have been high for a year. That has a very real impact on those in sectors that rely on borrowing. Now, what is important is that we do our bit to ensure that we’re not adding fuel to the inflation fire, as that Government did so rampantly, causing interest rates to go higher than would have otherwise been the case. The second thing—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. The member has had swipes at the former Government’s policies throughout her answers and that is just another one, and it’s entirely out of order.

SPEAKER: No, there are two aspects. I’ve looked at this quite extensively. Reporting of historic facts or factual information is not unreasonable in an answer, but when it comes to answering for another party or making a suggestion about another party’s policy, that is unreasonable.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: She said “rampant”.

SPEAKER: I’m not going to rule the word “rampant” out of order, but I would suggest that the Minister speaks about her own Government’s performance more than a previous Government’s performance.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: So as I said, two things going on: one, you’ve got to get the fundamentals right, which is actually about getting low, stable inflation so interest rates can decline, which helps everyone in the economy. Sorry to give you an economics lecture, but that is the truth of it. The second thing is about the Government’s role in infrastructure investment. I’m advised that over the next five years, we will be investing $68 billion in infrastructure. Here’s a critical difference: when we talk about investing in infrastructure, we don’t mean visualisations of a light rail train on the front page of the New Zealand Herald. What we mean is actual people in hard hats with actual diggers and spades repairing potholes, fixing roads, and getting things built.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister of Finance confirm that if house prices are stabilised, inflation and interest rates come down, and more homes are built, then it’s very likely that first-home buyers will be massively advantaged?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I can confirm exactly that, and what the Deputy Prime Minister conveys is a much deeper understanding of the housing market than the members opposite, who thought they’d fix it by building 100,000 KiwiBuild homes. Well, how did that work out?

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Are the only group that can expect better times ahead landlords, who get a $2.9 billion tax cut?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the member would do well to dwell on the facts in my little tax book which says 3.5 million households benefit from tax relief, and she voted against it.

Question No. 6—Health (Pharmac)

6. to the Associate Minister of Health (Pharmac): What announcements has he made about delivering more medicines to New Zealanders?

It’s an excellent question. Yesterday, in collaboration with my friend and fellow Whangārei-n Dr Shane Reti, the Minister of Health, our Government’s announced $604 million of extra money to buy medicines for New Zealanders over four years. This has been described as a game-changer, and in a country that has under-invested in medicines and treatments for far too long, it most certainly is. And Pharmac advised that this kind of money will help up to 175,000 people with medicines they wouldn’t have otherwise had: 54 medicines; 26 of them aimed at cancer. That is a real change in our approach to healthcare in New Zealand.

Laura Trask: Is he confident that Pharmac will be able to continue delivering improved access to medicines?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I have spoken with the chief executive of Pharmac and they accept that making sure that this huge uplift in funding is spent well, to get value for money for all New Zealand patients, is a challenge, and they have been allocated additional money in the range of $2 million to $3 million a year to help them with this enormous procurement task of more medicines for Kiwi patients. However, this is what Pharmac are good at. They are an entity filled with people—skills in finance and pharmacology and negotiating to get the best possible deal for Kiwi patients, and I’m very confident that’s what they will do with these additional funds.

Laura Trask: Why is it important that the Pharmac model is used to deliver new medicines?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: As I’ve said, Pharmac is filled with people with, I think, extraordinary ability and I’m very proud to be the Minister responsible for this Crown entity. They have people with the skills and abilities, they know the pharmaceutical market, they know the developing technology, they know how to negotiate, and they know what value for money looks like. They are also an entity that is on a growth curve, improving its listening to patient voice and improving its agility and dexterity at delivering and funding medicines faster as the Government works through Medsafe to consent them faster. For all of those reasons, I think it’s an excellent entity and it’s going to do a very good job at delivering these extra medicines for Kiwi patients.

Laura Trask: What else will he be doing to improve access to medicine?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, we are reforming Medsafe and the way that it consents new medicines—in particular, putting in place the rule of two where a pharmaceutical or treatment that is consented in two other peer countries must be consented in New Zealand within 30 days of application to Medsafe. We have already ensured that medicines which are being consented with Medsafe can begin consenting for funding with Pharmac simultaneously, saving time getting medicines for market so they can start making New Zealanders well more quickly. This is the kind of thinking and innovation that is required in order to get better outcomes for the patient and may actually save the taxpayer money elsewhere in the healthcare system by allowing New Zealanders to return to work and live more active lives, which is good for the taxpayer and good for them.

Question No. 7—Prime Minister

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

Yes, but I just also want to acknowledge co-leader Marama Davidson and wish her and her family well in the struggle and challenge that she’s going through at this time. Look, yes, especially the Government’s action to restore law and order, and crime has skyrocketed in recent years, and Kiwis, frankly, are sick of it. I’m sick of it, and everyone is. After years of neglect, this Government is finally taking action. We’re going after the gangs. We’re bringing back three strikes. We’re putting limits on judicial discounts, and, on Sunday, we announced there’ll be more cops on the beat in Auckland Central from 1 July, fighting violent and retail crime. I’d just say to that member: if she cared about crime in Auckland and if she cared about keeping Kiwis safe, she’d back those policies and finally deliver better results for her constituents.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How does he reconcile the statement of Christopher Luxon “We are fixated on making sure that we deliver on net zero carbon 2050” with his Government’s decision to reopen oil and gas exploration?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just say to that member: we need to make sure that we actually have gas in this country as part of our energy mix. It’s really important. What we have inherited is a whole bunch of bumper stickers and announcements for an oil and gas ban—no follow-through, no plan, and now we have an energy security challenge in this country. So we need to reverse the oil and gas ban, and I’d encourage that member to support us.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that the average time for offshore oil and gas development, from exploration permit to first production, is 16 years?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: And that’s why it had quite a chilling effect when that Government just announced the bumper sticker, under some political pressure, without thinking through the next steps. We are in a situation where we have a shortage of gas in this country. That’s going to impact some of our businesses, and as a result of poorly thought-through policy, now we’re dealing with the consequences. But we’ll clean it up.

Chlöe Swarbrick: So can the Prime Minister then confirm the purpose—what is the purpose?—of the Government’s plan to open up new oil and gas exploration?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, energy security would be number one. The second thing would be to avoid using coal, so we can use gas. It’s better than coal but not as good as renewables.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What special data and evidence does the Prime Minister have access to in order to disagree with the International Energy Agency that “To achieve net zero, no new oil and gas fields are required beyond those already approved for development as of 2021”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m worried about this country’s energy security—hospitals, schools, and businesses running out of gas because of a poorly thought-through bumper sticker, Post-it note policy from the previous administration.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Prime Minister confirm that the policy he’s enunciating is in line with that of our closest economic partner, Australia, led by a Labor Party Government and Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, on the interest of gas being used in the transition, which is a realistic position, not one with the fairies?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The reality is that we need gas as a transitory source of energy for this country’s energy security.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How does he reconcile drilling for more oil and gas with what Christopher Luxon, National Party leader, campaigned on, as I read from the National Party website: “To deliver on New Zealand’s climate goals, we need whole sectors of the New Zealand economy to switch to clean electricity. It makes no sense to encourage the shift to electric vehicles if the power comes from burning coal. New Zealand must have enough renewable electricity to meet the rising demand.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m really excited to hear the members enthusiasm for driving and doubling the amount of renewables in this country, and what I’d just say to you is that I’d encourage you to support our fast-track legislation, because what we want to do is double the amount of renewables, and I welcome your support, because if you cared about climate change, you’d back that. If you actually cared about climate change, you’d reverse the oil and gas ban. If you cared about actually mining for critical minerals that actually drive our climate change, come and support us.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Dig that hole!

Hon Shane Jones: Drill, drill!

SPEAKER: We’re just going to wait while the House calms down a bit. That sort of outburst is not particularly well received by the public who do watch this question time. So I would suggest that while passions run high over topics like climate change, some little bit of decorum might be well worth holding on to.

Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment

8. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by all her statements made at the Estimates hearing of the Social Services and Community Committee on 19 June?

Yes. In particular, my statement that when this Government took office, we inherited a welfare system that was supporting about 70,000 more people on jobseeker benefit than six years earlier, despite having gone through periods where workers were in high demand.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does the Minister stand by her statement that she received no advice regarding the 9,000 beneficiaries who will be worse off as a consequence of the tax changes?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Yes.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is the Minister aware that this information was in the regulatory impact statement finalised on 24 April, and did the Minister not read the advice provided to her or read it but not understand it?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: In terms of any of the policies around the tax changes, they are the responsibility of the Minister of Finance.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That answer cannot be allowed to stand. This is a question about a statement that the Minister herself has made and the advice that she has received. She can’t simply say that’s another Minister’s responsibility. She’s responsible for her own statements.

SPEAKER: OK, we’ll have the question again.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is the Minister aware that this information was in the regulatory impact statement finalised on 24 April, and did the Minister not read the advice provided to her or read it but not understand it?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I did not receive or seek advice directly about a tax change, because it is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Regulatory impact statements go to all Cabinet Ministers, so the Minister’s answer simply cannot be correct.

SPEAKER: Well, it’s probably a pedantic point, with all due respect. The Ministers in that case will be receiving multiples of impact statements. Now, I’m sure that Ministers in the member’s Government probably read all of them, but I have to take the member’s word in this case, and the House will make its own conclusions about that answer.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why did the Minister state that disabled people would lose their jobs if the minimum-wage exemption was scrapped, given over $11 million a year was budgeted by the previous Government to subsidise the employers to pay decent wages to those workers?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The minimum wage exemption that exists supports a number of often severely intellectually disabled people that receive the supported living payment and, in addition to that, have the opportunity to work through disability enterprises. They have provided feedback to me directly that what was proposed by the previous Government would not be successful and they would risk not being able to continue to employ disabled people.

Helen White: What, if any, strategy does the Government have in place to respond to an increasing demand for food being experienced by groups like the Auckland City Mission, the Salvation Army, and other providers?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Mr Speaker, that’s not within the scope of the primary question, but I could answer it if you wish me to.

SPEAKER: Well, I think the member should have a go at answering it.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: So there are obviously some very challenging times at the moment, which is why the Government’s priority is rebuilding the economy, is reducing the cost of living crisis, and is providing tax relief so that New Zealanders are able to afford food. And in terms of demand for the provision through food banks, which is concerning, we are providing assistance to them and will continue to work with them to see if that demand goes further.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How can beneficiaries, the working poor, and disabled people have any confidence in a Minister who doesn’t remember or ignores advice she received, chooses to cut $11 million a year that was to be used to pay disabled people a minimum wage, and doesn’t prioritise funding of social services who are feeding our most vulnerable during a challenging time?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We are clear on this side of the House that we want to reduce the cost of living so more New Zealanders who are working get tax relief and don’t require the support of places like food banks. We want to ensure that those who are severely disabled who receive the supported living payment continue to have the opportunity to be in employment, and we want to see a lot fewer job seekers than that former MP oversaw joining the beneficiary ranks.

Question No. 9—Education

9. to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about specialist schools in New Zealand?

I was incredibly proud to recently announce a landmark $89 million investment in specialist schools that will improve the condition of classrooms around New Zealand for some of our learners with the most diverse, complex, and fragile needs. This funding secures the rebuild of Sommerville, Maitai, and Sir Keith Park specialist schools, in addition to a $26 million investment in 17 new satellite classrooms based in mainstream schools around the country. This Government believes in parental choice and, by upgrading and expanding specialist schools, we are providing this choice. To the 681 families who are on a waiting list to access specialist schools, this investment will mean more enrolments. I am delighted that our Government has been able to provide targeted investment to upgrade and expand the offering of our specialist schools to better meet the needs of families and their tamariki.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What reports has she seen that are supporting her announcements?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: A recent report released by the Education Review Office (ERO), entitled Built in, not bolted on, highlighted some of the most vulnerable learners in our classrooms around the country that are in a terrible state. The ERO report quotes that they are not suitable to meet the needs of students. It’s heartbreaking to learn of specialist classrooms that have been closed due to the growth of black mould and mushrooms, knowing the impact that this could have on the health and wellbeing of some of our most vulnerable learners. ERO also noted that there have been no new specialist schools built in the last 50 years, despite a 62 percent increase in their roll since 2013. The Special Education Principals’ Association president said the announcement came after years of under-funding and she’s grateful that this Government has strongly positioned specialist education as being part of the continuum of choice for parents, backed up with investment in property, which is long overdue.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What other changes did the Minister announce as part of this investment?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, this announcement is just the start and it signals this Government’s firm commitment to specialist education provision and parental choice in education. ERO’s report noted that specialist schools offer students a highly adapted programme of learning tailored to their abilities and interests and that all 27 specialist day schools employ a specialist workforce who support students’ overall development. In line with ERO’s recommendations, this Government will include specialist schools and satellite classrooms in network planning to better reflect demand and reduce wait times for this type of provision. The expansion of satellite classrooms will also make more of the specialist support available in mainstream settings and foster collaborative practice amongst our teachers.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What feedback has she seen about this announcement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ve received strong support from across the sector. The principal of Blomfield Special School said she was delighted with the announcement of two new satellite teaching spaces at Bay of Islands College and felt relieved for whānau in the mid-North who did not have anywhere for current satellite students to go after primary school. I wish to just share a quick message with the House from a parent of a seven-year-old who has autism. They are on a waiting list for access to a specialist satellite classroom. She wrote: “It will be life changing for our son if we can get him into a unit.” She spoke of the benefits of being able to work with specialist teachers and aids, with the hope that he will be able to attend school full time for the first time in his life. Those stories and those parents are why our Government has made this investment, and it is just the start.

Question No. 10—State Owned Enterprises

10. to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Can he guarantee that the Government’s replacement ferries for the Cook Strait will be cheaper than those to be delivered in the cancelled iReX project; if not, why not?

While the Government has not made a formal decision around the purchase of new ferries, as the Prime Minister has said, “The Government is absolutely committed to ensuring that we can get great new ships on the Cook Strait”. And, in doing so, we definitely expect the total cost of any such project to be significantly less than the $3 billion, which was the cost of Project iReX when it was cancelled by KiwiRail.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. That question was about the cost of the ferries, quite clearly, not the cost of the overall project. The Minister’s answer referred only to the overall cost of the project but not the ferries themselves.

SPEAKER: That’s true, but the question—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, can I help here? Please.

SPEAKER: Well, look—I realise I’m fairly remedial in this job.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Look, Mr Speaker, he’s a lawyer; he got—

SPEAKER: Hang on, I haven’t called you.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The iReX project wasn’t just for the ferries; it was for the other infrastructure, and that’s what he should have read in the first place.

SPEAKER: Good, OK. Look, so I think the Minister’s answer started with “There’s been no formal Government decision”. At that point, it’s hard to expect that there would be a further qualification inside the answer.

Tangi Utikere: Has the cancellation of iReX specifically related to the ferry build part of the contract actually been actioned; if not, why not?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The contract has been repudiated and ongoing discussions are continuing around the exit cost of that. The ferries will not be coming because we’re not going to spend $3 billion on an overall project.

Tangi Utikere: Can he confirm that indicative costs associated with the wind-down and cancellation of the build to date will total more than the $551 million figure for the build locked in by the previous Government?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, I cannot confirm that, and I won’t be making any comments about ongoing negotiation. The simple point is that it is a painful exercise we’re going through, and it is one of the very many financial bombs that this Government discovered on coming into office—that we had a project that went from $700 million to more than $3 billion and it was unaffordable and inappropriate, and that’s why this Government stopped that project.

Tangi Utikere: Will the Government deliver new ferries by 2026, the date the new ferries were due to be operational; if not, when can New Zealanders expect to be using new ferries?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, we’re still considering options on replacement ferries and we have every expectation that we’ll make progress well before the 2029 date that has been considered for the current ferries. And so what we’re working through is dealing with a situation where we had a project that blew out unbelievably over the course of the past few years, which the previous Government didn’t manage, and this Government is fixing up their mess.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that even if the ships had arrived, there were still very real questions about where they would berth as they were too large for the berths, and can he also confirm that the harbour master had questioned whether they could actually safely go through the Tory Channel?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: There were a wide range of issues with that project, and the primary one was that because the ships were so much bigger than the current ships and were rail-enabled, it required enormous costs to be put into the port’s infrastructure. Now, as those prices escalated, the previous Government had many opportunities to deal with this matter. They didn’t. They left it for this Government to deal with, and we have.

Tangi Utikere: Was the ministerial advisory group’s initial advice, upon their appointment, to continue with the contracted iReX ferry build?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The ministerial advisory group has given us plenty of advice and I’m not going to go into the details of that because we continue to have ongoing discussions about those issues.

Tangi Utikere: Has KiwiRail warned the Government that due to reputational damage of breaking the contract, it may not be able to procure new ships for decades and that it could also impact other Government ship procurements?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, we are having ongoing discussions around procuring new ships and I have not received any advice that it is impossible to get new ships. It’s just a question of time, and we’re working our way through that process.

Question No. 11—Children

11. to the Minister for Children: Does she agree with the Chief Children’s Commissioner, who said on the creation of the Young Serious Offender category and military-style bootcamps that she wants “to see an approach that helps to rehabilitate these young people and help them on to a better pathway, rather than labelling them”; if not, is she taking an approach that will have “unnecessarily punitive impacts” on young people?

on behalf of the Minister for Children: I wish to say that I actually do agree that it’s important that we have an approach that helps to rehabilitate these young people and help them on a better pathway. That is exactly what the Young Serious Offender declaration and military-style academies will do. It will learn from previous initiatives, and it will ensure that young people who may have gone a bit off the rails are actually given the support and the encouragement and, frankly, the discipline to allow them to become positive contributing citizens again in our country for their benefit and the benefit of all. In answer to the second part of the question, that there will be unnecessarily punitive impacts, well, no, I don’t agree with that, but what I do sense from the member’s question is that they still believe we should live in a world where no action has any consequence. Well, I’m sorry but if you’re a young person that creates a serious offence—such as a ram raid, such as an assault, such as we saw in Papatoetoe over the weekend—well, I’m sorry but there are consequences. One of the consequences might be that somebody labels you as a “Young Serious Offender” because that’s what you are. If the Opposition can’t understand actions and consequences, then no wonder we have had such a crime wave in the last six years under their leadership.

Tamatha Paul: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s view on her approach to youth justice that “I don’t care what you say about whether it does or doesn’t work.”, and, if so, is that why she is proceeding with an approach which domestic and international evidence shows does not work?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, first of all, on behalf of the Minister for Children, I find that the Prime Minister has enormous wisdom and sometimes it comes out more fully when he is—

Steve Abel: You’ve already made a speech. Just answer the question.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I beg your pardon?

Steve Abel: You’ve already made a speech. Just answer the question.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, I tell you what: that member is a long way from ever answering a question in this House. You know, he’d be more likely to be answering his questions from up a tree. The simple fact is that we have an approach here which is learning from previous experience. For example, the previous approach: actually, the evidence was that when students—when offenders, sorry—were in residence, actually, they had their—

Chlöe Swarbrick: They are students.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, they’re often students that aren’t attending school, and that’s one of the problems that we’ve inherited from the previous Government. But the evidence is that, actually, during the previous programme from 2010 to 2016, actually the offenders did improve while in residence. It was taking them back to the community where often things went wrong and they ended up reoffending. That’s why the pilot of the new programme will have three months out of 12 in residence and focus for the subsequent nine months on proper wraparound support and rehabilitation. I believe that that will work. But if you’d like to see evidence of what doesn’t work: the previous six years, which led to a crime wave so bad even some MPs were getting in on it.

Tamatha Paul: Why is she rejecting official advice that military-style activities do not work to reduce offending, and going ahead with her political experiment that will only cause more harm to young people?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I completely reject the assertion in the member’s question. If she wants to talk about a political experiment, how’s this? Six years of thinking, “If only we’re kind to criminals, they’ll start being kind back if we just wait long enough.” That was a political experiment undertaken by that Government.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. That was simply an attack on the previous Government. It had no substance; it didn’t refer to any concrete policies; it was just a swipe. It’s usual David Seymour behaviour, but at that point—

SPEAKER: Hang on. Points of order are heard in silence, whether you like them or not. So the member can start his point of order again.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Those statements by the member were simply a list of allegations about the previous Government that didn’t refer to any previous policies or facts and were entirely out of order.

SPEAKER: I totally disagree with you—

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Speaking to the—

SPEAKER: No. I’m ruling. I disagree with you because of the nature of the question that was asked. David Seymour—unless he’s finished, which would be quite good.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: No, no. I could always give you a bit more. Would you like—no?

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has he visited the stores and shops and spoken to the owners, victims of youth crime, like I have, and has he heard the repeated chorus that we’ve heard from many of them, “There are just no consequences for these young kids, who have caused me and my family enormous cost”, and does he not agree that there is a basic requirement to have real consequences for these young offenders?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, on behalf of the Minister for Children, I have observed Karen Chhour as one of the hardest-working Ministers, who gets around the country, goes and talks to the people that her ministry is responsible for, goes to the facilities, finds out what is wrong, and fixes it in a practical way. And, yes, she also, I am sure, visits and has many occasions to talk to the people who are the victims of crime, and that, among many strands of her rich and authentic life experience—which drives the left mad, might I add—is her motivation to make a difference in this Government and this House.

Tamatha Paul: Does she accept advice from experts that when traumatised young people are subjected to harsh discipline in bootcamps, they are likely to associate their treatment with the abuse caused to them in the past, causing further anxiety and stress?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, again, there’s some difficulty because the member seems to have a sort of paint-by-numbers, cartoonish approach to characterising the Government’s policy. What she is describing is not what this Government is putting in place. We are putting in place a pilot programme that will take the most serious offenders—those who have done assaults, who have done ram raids, between the ages of 14 and 17; those who go and hit people with hammers in their retail stores—and actually put them in a place where they get structure and discipline and have an opportunity to build self-esteem by making a real difference in their own lives. In order to do this, you need something called “values”—the idea that each person is equal in their dignity and able to make a positive difference, given the structure and the opportunity. That’s what they’ll be getting.

Tamatha Paul: To what extent is a bootcamp programme that is going to involve just 10 young people at a cost that would never be scaled a genuine and serious solution to a problem, or is it just politicking with young people’s lives for the sake of appearing to be tough on crime?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Wow, look, I think—it’s like a cliché machine that’s taken the pseudoephedrine! This is a very serious matter. Youth crime has got out of control over the last six years. Lacking the values to give young people structure and discipline, having nowhere to take them—having them climb up on the roof and having to be bribed down with KFC actually made a mockery of the values that underpin this country. Now we have a Government that is putting approximately $5 million into a pilot, and, yes, the pilot will cost a lot more than the programme. That’s because we’re learning, because we’re collecting evidence and data about how to do better for a very serious problem, including for those students. So my advice to the member is to stop the paint-by-numbers cliché machine and pay attention to the detail of what’s actually being proposed, not what sounds good to her Wellington mates.

Tamatha Paul: If the point is to do what works, why not invest in a pilot programme that was evidence-led, not retrofitted to a failed bootcamp model?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Once again, the member has a caricature of what the Government is doing which is simply untrue. This is a programme that will take young serious offenders and put them in a place where they get structure and discipline and opportunity to build self-esteem. That is three of the 12 months of the programme. The remaining nine months are outside of that facility, in the community, being rehabilitated, learning to live as good, honest citizens again—totally different from the caricature that the member has in her mind. And I can only say to her one more time: try focusing on what the Government is actually doing, not the caricature she’s built in her mind.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Save it for the ACT Party conference.

SPEAKER: Thank you for that, Carmel Sepuloni; that’s most useful.

Question No. 12—Police

12. to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has Police made about deployments in our city centres?

On Sunday, Police announced the establishment of community beat teams in major cities across New Zealand, as well as Operation Safer Streets in Auckland to target antisocial behaviour and crime in the CBD. From 1 July, 21 additional staff will be joining the beat team in Auckland CBD, with the intent to move to a 24/7 beat patrol model. This is part of the wider community beat teams deployment, over two years, of 63 staff to Auckland, 17 to Wellington, and 10 to Christchurch, to provide the public with reassurance and to deter and disrupt antisocial behaviour and retail crime. Sunday’s announcement, alongside the announcement of the National Gang Unit and district gang disruption units, builds upon the work Police is doing to deliver on my letter of expectations and, more broadly, this Government’s plan to restore law and order.

Tom Rutherford: Why did he make police being highly visible in communities one of his expectations of the Police Commissioner?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I talk regularly with retail shop owners, business owners, and the public, and have had dozens of public meetings around the country, both as Minister and before. The number one piece of feedback—and I completely agree with it—is that the public have not in recent years had a sense that police are present in their communities. As police Minister, my focus is on ensuring that police are getting back out on the beat, providing reassurance, and deterring offending.

Tom Rutherford: Does he agree with the Queens Arcade property manager, who believes that the announcement will help bring down crime in the Auckland CBD?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, I do. I’m confident that having police highly visible in the CBD as part of Operation Safer Streets will ensure that the public get a sense that police are keeping them safe, and will give offenders a sense that their activity will not be tolerated. While it’s heartening to see that Police are saying crime in the central city is starting to trend in the right direction, it is still at an unacceptable level and the public are still exposed to it and feel unsafe. This Government is focused on clamping down on crime.

Tom Rutherford: Does he agree with the Wellington Chamber of Commerce chief executive that it is “surprising what [these] kind[s] of interventions can do.”?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I agree with what he says. Because of my own experience, I’ve seen the positive effect of highly visible beat constables in their communities.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why does Christchurch have to wait two years for just 10 additional beat constables?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, Christchurch haven’t had to wait for constables being more visible in their communities, because there’s changes taking place already. As part of the established beat teams, there’s going to be an additional 10 dedicated police constables that will be put into Christchurch.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Sorry, point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was: why does Christchurch have to wait two years for just 10 more police officers? I got that they are waiting for two years, but he didn’t explain the reason behind that.

SPEAKER: No, no—think about the whole question that was asked. The Minister’s opening statement was that they don’t have to wait two years. So you can’t be more definitive than that.