Oral Questions

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

Yes, and especially our action to rewrite the Sentencing Act to ensure that criminals face serious sentences for serious offending. We’re making a raft of changes to prioritise victims over offenders: capping discounts, new aggravating factors for retail crime, and a new requirement that victims’ interests must be taken into account when sentencing. After years of lawlessness, this Government is putting its foot down and saying “Enough.” We said we would restore law and order, and today’s announcement is part of that.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by the statement of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, “We’re open to constructive changes on the fast-track regime to ameliorate some of the concerns that people have”, and, if so, what changes will he make to address the concerns of over 20,000 people who marched on 8 June because they believe this bill is a threat to Aotearoa’s environment and democracy?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I agree with the Minister who has quite generously said that he would go through the select committee process and if there’s sensible changes, he would be happy to make them.

Hon Marama Davidson: What constructive changes will he make to address the concerns of Ngāi Tahu that the infrastructure deficit should be corrected, but “it should not be used as an excuse to subvert Treaty settlements or environmental safeguards. … We cannot sacrifice the long-term sustainability of our natural resources for short-term economic gains.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The Minister, as I said before—I don’t know how to express it any other way—if there’s any sensible or constructive changes, he’s very happy to take that on board.

Hon Marama Davidson: What constructive changes will he make to address the concerns of the Ombudsman that unless the “beefing up of executive power … [is] matched by oversight and accountability, … I think democracy itself is the loser.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I don’t know how to explain it to the member, but it is before the committee, and as a result we are going through a process, and if there’s sensible changes to be made, they will be made. But what I’d just say is that we are determined to get things built in this country. And we are not apologising for fast-track legislation, because we need modern, reliable infrastructure. We need to double the amount of renewable energy in this country so we can deliver on our climate change goals. And I’d just encourage the Green Party, if you believe in climate change, you’d support our fast-track provisions. [Interruption]

Hon Marama Davidson: What—

SPEAKER: Just wait—OK.

Hon Marama Davidson: What constructive changes will he make to address the concerns of the Lake Horowhenua Trust, who say that the bill “places excessive powers in the hands of Ministers and unjustifiably removes public participation”, given Christopher Luxon’s description of centralisation as “a robbery of power and control from local communities”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, the bill is before the select committee. Sensible changes will be considered. But we are going to build things in this country. We need to get things done. We need to speed up our resource consenting; we need to be able to open up more financing and funding tools; and we need to be able to build things for New Zealanders so they get the economic, social, and environmental benefits.

Hon Marama Davidson: Can he outline how the Cabinet Manual policies for managing real or perceived conflicts, which he mentioned in this House on 28 May, have been engaged in relation to the fast-track bill?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: All Ministers are aware of the Cabinet Manual and conflicts are managed.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister, will he heed the Green Party’s response to the Hon David Parker’s insightful legislation, setting 17 precedents for fast track; or is it a case that when that happened, from the Greens there wasn’t a mutter, not a murmur, not a syllable, not a sound?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just say we have taken a very good piece of legislation from David Parker. We have expanded and built upon it. We are determined to make sure we get things built and we do encourage the Green Party to support the legislation.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. Mr Speaker, surely that question should have been stopped. The Prime Minister is absolutely not responsible for the Green Party’s position on something David Parker said or has done.

SPEAKER: No, but he’s responsible for his own views. And if the member likes to check the Hansard, he’ll find that’s what was asked for. Question No. 2—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: —in the name of Ryan Hamilton. Oh, sorry. My apologies, Mr Hamilton, we are still going.

Hon Rachel Brooking: To the Prime Minister, does he know that the purpose section of the COVID legislation that he just referred to is significantly different to the purpose of his fast-track legislation, which does not mention the environment or sustainable management?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’ll just say, when we see a good idea, we try and build upon it and improve it, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.

Steve Abel: Point of order. I think that was a very specific and useful question as to whether the Prime Minister knows if the purpose section is different. He didn’t actually directly answer that.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I agree they are different pieces of legislation, but the principle of actually fast-tracking so we can get things done and built is a good idea. And we’ve taken that as an idea. We’re building upon it so we get a one-stop fast-track solution in place so we can get things done, including doubling renewable energy.

SPEAKER: The House appreciates the Prime Minister’s eagerness to answer questions, but just wait till you’re called would be helpful.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: What was the final operating allowance in Budget 2024?

Well, the operating allowance is the amount of new operating funding allocated to new policy initiatives in each Budget—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: And 2025.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —it’s good to see Willow-Jean Prime is so interested in this—calculated on average per year across the forecast period. I said in the Budget Policy Statement in March that the final operating allowance for Budget 2024 would be less than $3.5 billion, which was the allowance set by the previous Government. The final allowance in this year’s Budget is, in fact, $3.2 billion.

Ryan Hamilton: What does the operating allowance include?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Allowances are a net concept. They include savings initiatives as well as new spending and revenue increases as well as tax relief. So Budget 2024 contains $9.1 billion of spending and tax relief on average per year across the forecast period, and that includes significant investments in health, in education, in law and order. But it also contains $5.9 billion worth of savings and revenue raising initiatives. So to help members with the maths: $9.1 billion of spending minus $5.9 billion of savings equals $3.2 billion, which is how we could fit all the Budget 2024 initiatives, including those investments in key public services, into a $3.2 billion operating allowance.

SPEAKER: Good. Brevity is a good idea.

Ryan Hamilton: How does the $3.2 billion operating allowance in Budget 2024 compare to allowances in previous Budgets?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the operating allowance in Budget 2024 is the lowest allowance in nominal terms since Budget 2018. So, taking into account inflation, which is quite important given rampant inflation in previous years, this is the lowest allowance since Steven Joyce’s Budget in 2017. So to give members something to compare with: the final operating allowances for the last two Labour Budgets were $5.9 billion in 2022 and $4.8 billion in 2023. This is a very fiscally responsible Budget.

Ryan Hamilton: What operating allowances has the Government set for future Budgets?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government has set the operating allowances for Budgets 2025, 2026, and 2027 at $2.4 billion per Budget. They are considerably lower than the allowances presented in the half-year update, which was set by the previous Government. Managing within future allowances of $2.4 billion will be very challenging. Savings and reprioritisation will be a feature of future Budgets, just as they were in Budget 2024 and just as New Zealanders expect from us. They will be a business-as-usual activity for this Government.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Yes, and in the context that they were given.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What support is the Government providing to local authorities in Gisborne and the Hawke’s Bay, following today’s extreme weather events?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I want to thank the member for his question. Minister Mitchell is actually down in the region. I’ve spoken to both mayors in Gisborne and also Wairoa, and immediately we’ve made available $100,000 to each of the mayoral relief funds. Obviously, the Minister will have an assessment on the ground today, and we stand by to do more.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will the Government be taking into account the recommendations made by Sir Jerry Mataparae in his report into the last North Island weather events last year in the way that it responds to the situation unfolding on the East Coast at the moment?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes. There have been two reports around our response to emergency events, and it’s important that both of those reports are digested, taken on board, and put into standard operating procedure.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Government increased the capability and capacity in civil defence emergency management across New Zealand, as recommended in the report, and, if not, when does the Government expect to make decisions on that?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I can’t give the member a specific answer. I’m happy to give more detail around that. What I can say is that we have put $1 billion extra into the Budget this year to support the communities after the events of last year.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Have the policy settings criteria and process for the funding that’s distributed in response to the costs associated with crises like this been updated, as the report recommended?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I can say is that we have $7.5 billion of unallocated multi-year capital allowance that’s been put to one side—or it is there, and it’s available to be used in infrastructure in the region on an as-needed basis.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will the Government be making allowance in its support package for the region for those homes and businesses who are still recovering from Cyclone Gabrielle—which was less than 18 months ago—recognising that for many of those homes and businesses, they haven’t yet completed that recovery process?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah, I can say to the member that each week, I have been asking for a scorecard on all of the areas that have been affected by the North Island weather events to see what progress is being made around category 3 property assessments: people moving from category 2 to category 3, or back out of that. We’d need to see the assessment from the Minister, and we stand by, ready to help.

Question No. 4—Justice

4. to the Associate Minister of Justice: How will the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill ensure consequences for repeat serious violent and sexual offenders while delivering justice for victims?

Yesterday, the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill was introduced to Parliament and earlier today I delivered the bill’s first reading speech. I’ve heard from many people that repeat serious sexual and violent offenders avoided the consequences of their actions under the old three-strikes regime. This Government is determined to hold offenders accountable for their actions. The sentencing principles included in the new three-strikes regime will require the judiciary to impose stricter sentences for repeat offenders and guides the judiciary to not take the implications of a strike into account when determining the length of a sentence. Under this Government, offenders will face the consequences of their actions and victims will receive the justice that they deserve.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What consequences will offenders face under the new and improved three-strikes regime?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: The Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill will ensure that offenders who do the crime will do the time. Upon receiving a sentence for a first strike, offenders will be warned of the consequences of further strikes. Second-strike offenders will be denied parole at their second strike, and offenders who receive their third strike will receive the maximum penalty for their sentence without parole. After six long years of a soft on crime approach, the victims of repeat violent and sexual offenders deserve justice, and this Government is going to make sure that they get it.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How will the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill ensure that offenders convicted for murder receive appropriate sentences?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: The bill ensures that individuals convicted of a murder on their second strike receive a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of at least 17 years. If the offender pleads guilty, they will receive a minimum sentence of 15 years to incentivise the timely delivery of justice and expedite court proceedings. For offenders convicted of murder on their third strike, the bill mandates a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 20 years. If they plead guilty, they will serve at least 18 years. Serious offenders deserve serious punishment. This Government will not be turning a blind eye.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Is this three-strikes initiative value for money, given that it will cost up to $10 million per year and the advice is that there will be no impact on community safety, the number of victims, trust in the justice system, or reduced recidivism, and her own officials said in respect of the last three-strikes regime that there was no consistent pattern to changing crime?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Will this be value for money at a price of a maximum of $10 million at a 10-year period when we start locking up those very serious repeat violent offenders? To the victims in our community, absolutely it’s value for money. For the people that are trying to run businesses and have retail crime on them, absolutely it’s going to be just for them. It’s not that we can put a monetary price on it; it’s that we put a value on victims in our communities, their safety, and their security.

Hon David Seymour: Has she considered the opposite approach of setting a target to reduce the prison population, saving money, letting the criminals out, and seeing victimisation rates go up 30 percent?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: The last six years with the target of reducing the prison population has not been—

SPEAKER: Tell you what—hang on. Start answering again without the reference to the past six years. The question was, had the member considered it? That doesn’t need a history lesson. Answer the question as it’s asked.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: We want to make sure that for our victims of crime, those that are in the community, they see penalties, sentences, and very serious violent offenders being locked up and taken out of their communities so they are not re-victimising victims over and over again, and I think the value of that is a just one.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Will offenders receive discounted sentences to compensate for any loss of parole, as occurred under the previous three-strikes regime?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Certainly not. The new bill clearly states that courts should not reduce sentences to avoid giving an offender a strike or to compensate for loss of parole eligibility if they do get a strike. This Government will not be wrapping repeat serious violent and sexual offenders in cotton wool. If they are willing to repeatedly make victims of innocent New Zealanders, then they will do the time in prison for it under this Government.

Question No. 5—Regional Development

5. to the Minister for Regional Development: What announcements has he made about investing in regional economic growth?

Recently, I attended an event near the Hauraki Gulf. Sadly, I was greeting by a small group of protesters, who I soon dismissed as speckled eco-squawkers. After that, the leader of the New Zealand First Party—the Deputy Prime Minister—and I announced the Kōpū Marine Precinct, which is going to expand and improve investment in the servicing of marine craft and broader maritime industries. An 80-metre wharf is the main feature, along with a floating pontoon. Aquaculture is a priority for this part of New Zealand, and that is why we are looking forward to the timely passing of the fast-track aquaculture consents bill.

Andy Foster: Why is the Kōpū Marine Precinct critical for driving economic growth in the Coromandel region?

Hon SHANE JONES: Economic growth in a number of our regions has faltered over the last three years. Our circumstances in regional New Zealand, in many respects, are dire, not only because of inflationary pressure but because of large degrees of red tape, regulatory dead-weight effects. For those reasons, we are continuing to support not only aquaculture—

Chlöe Swarbrick: A long way to say, “New Zealand First”.

Hon SHANE JONES: Enough from the psychedelic crowd over there. Not only will the Regional Infrastructure Fund improve opportunities in regional New Zealand, which will be announced in the very near future in July; it will also ensure that infrastructure, where appropriate, is modernised and renewed for the inevitable growth of the mining sector.

Andy Foster: Can the Minister tell us why infrastructure is so important for regional New Zealand?

Hon SHANE JONES: That question requires a very judicious reply; I shall give my best shot at that.

SPEAKER: Does that mean brief?

Hon SHANE JONES: Within the audience, within the community groups that gathered with us, were the leaders of the Ngāti Maru tribe, including the elder Harry Mikaere, who has assumed the mantle of an earlier group of rangatira, not the least of which was Mr Shu Tukukino. They said this: without infrastructure, without clear direction, without a robust quality of regional leadership that goes over the top of the catastrophising, demonising effects of climate alarmists, we will never have growth in regional New Zealand.

Andy Foster: What other announcements is he planning on investment in regional infrastructure?

Hon SHANE JONES: It should be evident to those who have paid great attention to the recent Budget decisions: up to $100 million has been made available to various flood resilience projects. That will be rolled out. It is a response to the list of projects served up by the regional council leadership of New Zealand. They are wending their way through the approvals process, because we want to make sure that such announcements get the balance right between what the Crown can pay for exclusively and what costs can be shared with regional communities. We understand that this is a classic, practical response to the concerns associated with volatile weather, which is why climate adaptations time has well and truly arrived, and I will deliver it with appropriate professionalism.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement that her Budget will have “less verbiage, fewer pretty pictures, and a lot more substance”; if not, why not?

Yes. When I said that, I was particularly thinking of this document called Wellbeing Budget 2023, which has a pretty picture on the front, a forward from the Prime Minister, a forward from the Minister of Finance, a highlights page, a chapter on spending—called “investments”—a chapter on wellbeing outlook and approach, all interspersed by multiple pretty pictures. I can assure members that none of this verbiage or pretty pictures are in Budget 2024.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does her Budget contain less verbiage because she cannot explain how the additional $12 billion in borrowing is not for her tax cuts?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: How does her Budget contain “a lot more substance” when her own chief economist could not point to any specific evidence that her Budget improves productivity?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The substance in our Budget that I would highlight for that member is the more than 240 savings initiatives, summarised in the summary of initiatives, wiping out low-value spending from the previous lot so that New Zealanders can keep more of their own money and we can make investments in things like schools, hospitals, and cancer drugs.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Is one of the “fewer pretty pictures” international credit rating agency Fitch being unimpressed with New Zealand’s worse than expected economic and Budget performance?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: One of the pretty pictures that isn’t there is this cracker from 2019—remember that one? That was the one with the couple who left New Zealand soon after being featured on the front page of her Budget.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Is one of the “fewer pretty pictures” our climate outlook, as the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research today said there has been a clear prioritisation of tax relief at the cost of climate outcomes?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The point of my statement has clearly completely escaped that member, which is this: we actually had six years of a Government that stamped “wellbeing” on every document that they could, who used hundreds and thousands of words to describe how pure and good their intentions were, but failed to deliver, and that is the point. That is what New Zealanders will judge this Government on. It’s what they judged your Government on, and it’s why you got voted out.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. I think my point of order’s clear—that whilst it was a political exchange, there was no place for a lecture on the previous Government’s achievements.

SPEAKER: With all due respect, when a question contains a word like “excessive verbiage”, what would you expect?

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order.

SPEAKER: No, I’m sorry; I’m saying your point does not stand. It’s a reasonable exchange that is going on.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Those were not the Opposition’s words; they were the Government’s words.

SPEAKER: That’s right, but they were in the Opposition’s question today. Supplementary question, the Hon Dr Megan Woods—and we’ll have quiet while the question is asked.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Is one of her “fewer pretty pictures” the fact that her operating allowance for next year is $2.4 billion but cost pressures will be at least $2.5 billion, which can only mean even deeper cuts to the public services are still to come?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: But wait there’s more. We have the pictures of New Zealand from above—that didn’t make any difference to New Zealand’s inflation rate or productivity. We’ve got the picture apparently Grant Robertson spent his time taking—that didn’t make any difference to waiting lists in the hospitals. We’ve got this pretty picture of a beautiful lake in New Zealand, and that didn’t lift educational achievement. Our Government is focused on results.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, although my supplementary did contain a quote from my primary, which was a direct quote from the Minister, I asked a very clear question about the operating allowances for next Budget. While the Minister showed us some interesting images from Budgets gone by, she did not address the issue of the operating allowance for next year’s Budget.

SPEAKER: I can’t agree with that, because the question was about the $100 million gap between the allowance and the projected expense pressures. The member pointed that out in her question. The answer came that pretty pictures don’t make a difference when it comes to Government expenditure.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister of Finance as to whether or not those pretty pictures contained one of the Marsden Point refinery, which Megan Woods requested be closed down, much to the shock of the ownership of Marsden Point, not known until now?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No.

Hon Chris Bishop: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Sorry?

Hon Chris Bishop: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: No, we’ve got to hear the answer.

Hon Chris Bishop: She did.

SPEAKER: Oh, did she? Well, there was so much noise, I couldn’t hear it. Please answer again.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No.

SPEAKER: Ah, good. OK. That’s clear. The Rt Hon Winston Peters—oh, sorry; the Hon Chris Bishop.

Hon Chris Bishop: You’re not right on that, either!

SPEAKER: Well, you know, you want to watch that mirror-image stuff.

Hon Chris Bishop: Was one of the pretty pictures referenced by the Hon Megan Woods in her original question a picture of the fantastical Auckland light rail project of which the previous Government published many?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, but I have it on good authority that that was from the same file which had the picture of Wellington light rail that was also contained in the same file—

SPEAKER: That’s OK

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —which had the picture of the Waitematā crossing—

SPEAKER: All good. Thank you.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —and other such fantasy projects.

SPEAKER: Very good.

Question No. 7—Justice

7. to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has the Government made about law and order?

Today I’ve announced a suite of sentencing reforms as part of the Government’s commitment to restoring law and order and real consequences for crime. We are capping sentence discounts at 40 percent, limiting concurrent sentencing, preventing repeat discounts for youth and remorse, and creating a sliding scale of guilty plea discounts. We’re acknowledging the vulnerability of sole-charge workers like dairy owners by making it an aggravating factor in sentencing, and reforming the overall principles of the Sentencing Act to provide confidence to victims that their needs will be taken into account. Victims are the priority.

Dan Bidois: How will these changes affect sentencing?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: In recent years, we’ve seen the courts imposing fewer and shorter prison sentences despite the increasing seriousness of cases coming before the courts. A recent sample of sentences showed 18 percent of cases received a total discount greater than 40 percent; some as high as 69 percent. Large discounts tell victims that we are more concerned about the offenders than ensuring that they see justice. The suite of changes we’ve announced today will prevent discounts by capping discounts at 40 percent to ensure that the punishment fits the crime.

Dan Bidois: Why do we need to do this?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, everyone needs to know that there are real consequences for crime. In recent years those consequences have diminished. For example, we’ve seen the imprisonment rate for robbery offences with a maximum penalty of 14 years decrease from 74 percent to 58 percent. We campaigned on restoring real consequences for crime, and that is what we’re going to.

Dan Bidois: How will this announcement align with the coalition’s priorities for law and order?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, this is a Government that is prioritising reducing the number of serious victims of crime and also reducing the number of serious repeat youth offenders. Part of that fits into a process of giving the police the extra powers they need to deal with gangs, having 500 extra police, restoring three strikes, and having the young serious offender category included, that Minister Chhour announced last week. Overall the goal is to restore law and order.

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

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

Yes, in the context they were given.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he concerned that amending the Residential Tenancies Act to allow no-cause evictions will increase housing insecurity and lead to more whānau being unable to put down roots in their communities?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We want to increase the supply of rental properties so we put downward pressure on rents. Part of that has been restoring interest deductibility, making sure we are backing off the brightline test, and, importantly, getting the balance right between tenants and landlords.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he aware of the findings of the Growing Up in New Zealand study that found a quarter of children who had experienced involuntary moves went on to experience homelessness, and, if so, why is this Government changing the law so that landlords can kick out tenants without any reason at all?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, our Government wants to make sure that vulnerable people get a chance to get a house. That’s why we are expanding supply of houses being built, rental houses, and also social housing. We’re very committed to solving and fixing the housing crisis the previous administration left behind.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he aware that the same study found 7 percent of young people in the cohort—that’s one or two kids in each classroom—has experienced homelessness by age 12, and, if so, why isn’t he concerned that his decision to cut funding for homelessness prevention will exacerbate this?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What’s important is that we rebuild this economy so that we can actually make people wealthier and more prosperous. That’s what we’re working incredibly hard to do. We want to lower the cost of living. That means actually getting on top of Government spending, lowering inflation, lowering interest rates, growing the economy, and keeping people in work.

Hon Marama Davidson: What does he say to Māhera Maihi, who runs a charitable trust providing transitional housing for youth, who said in relation to these Budget cuts, “What is there for those young people? They’ve taken away $20 million intended for them and they’ve put it back into mainstream. That’s not fair, that’s not equitable and that doesn’t solve the problem.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We announced that there would be 1,500 extra social housing places for community housing providers. We are determined to get our economy working again so that people can actually do well when they work hard.

Hon Shane Jones: Off the couch—off the couch.

Chlöe Swarbrick: They don’t have a couch—that’s the point.

SPEAKER: Question—

Hon Marama Davidson: Go see Māhera, Shane.

SPEAKER: That’s enough—it’s quite enough.

Question No. 9—State Owned Enterprises

9. to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Does he stand by his answers to oral question No. 10 yesterday that the KiwiRail iReX contract with Hyundai has been “repudiated and ongoing discussions are continuing around the exit cost of that”; if so, was that repudiation a unilateral decision by KiwiRail or agreed by all parties?

Yes, I stand by my answer in full, which included the quote, “The ferries will not be coming because we are not going to spend $3 billion on an overall project.” In response to the second part of the member’s question, repudiation of a contract occurs when one party to a contract is unwilling or unable to fulfil its obligation to another.

Tangi Utikere: Is KiwiRail currently undertaking a disputes resolution or arbitration process with Hyundai regarding their ship building contract?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, there are ongoing conversations, and it’s not in the interests of the company or the Government to outline the details of that. But, yes, there are ongoing discussions.

Tangi Utikere: Is there a cap on KiwiRail’s exposure in this dispute; if not, what is the exposure of KiwiRail?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I’m not going to go into the details of that, but I can remind the member that the Government, when it came in, had a choice between two bad outcomes. One outcome was to risk paying for breaking the contract—for KiwiRail breaking the contract. The other risk was going ahead with a project that had got to $3 billion and rising. And so neither of those were very good options, but we had to go with one and we didn’t want to spend $3 billion.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the interest of transparency, could the Minister advise as to which Government was in power when the iReX contract was signed, and is it also the case that of the contract, when it comes to the ferries, they only totalled less than 25 percent of the contract and the rest was for infrastructure that Labour had signed up to?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I can advise the House that the Labour Government was in power, and that the initial estimate of the cost of the project for two ferries was $700 million, and it has crested $3 billion and was continuing to rise. And the primary driver of that cost was not the cost of the ferries; it was the cost of the fact that the ferries were bigger than the current ferries and rail-enabled, and it required an enormous amount of very expensive work at the ports at both ends. And that’s what we’re trying to avoid.

Tangi Utikere: Was Cabinet advised prior to announcing the cancellation of the contract with Hyundai that there is no exit provision for KiwiRail in the contract?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I’m not going to go into the details of ongoing discussions, but Cabinet had a simple decision as to whether it was going to continue to fund the project to the tune of, all over, $3 billion, and we declined to make that decision.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to whether or not he’s aware or not that his predecessor never saw the contract that he signed up to being raised now in terms of the provision of an exit clause?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I can’t tell the House what the previous Minister did or didn’t see. But what I can tell—

SPEAKER: Hold on. Hold on. I doubt that you’d be in a position, Minister, to say whether or not another Minister had seen something.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yeah, but he could.

SPEAKER: Well, that might be the case, but he can’t. So maybe ask the question again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether or not he has been informed by Mr Hipkins as to that iReX contract, as to whether Mr Hipkins and his party over there saw the contract in the first place and (b) looked at the opt-out clause being in it or not?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, I haven’t been informed of such by Mr Hipkins, but I am shocked that they allowed a project like this to get to the extent that it might be costing $3 billion or excess.

Tangi Utikere: Has Cabinet been advised that costs for exiting the contract could exceed $200 million?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, again, those discussions are ongoing, but Cabinet has been advised there may well be costs in exiting the contract. And, like I say, Cabinet was forced to choose between two bad outcomes: exiting a contract or continuing on with a ridiculously expensive project, and we had to make a decision and we did make a decision.

Tangi Utikere: What advice, if any, has the Government received regarding the reputational risk to New Zealand and KiwiRail of exiting the contract, particularly if the Government had been warned that due to reputational damage of breaking the contract, it may not be able to procure new ships for decades and it could also impact other Government ship procurements?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the advice is it’s never desirable to be breaking contracts, but it’s also not desirable to spend $3 billion on two ferries. And so we have to be careful with the way that we spend our money. This is why this is a Government that’s inherited a Budget which is in a state of disrepair that we’re trying to put back together again by making some sensible decisions about spending.

Question No. 10—Social Development and Employment

10. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent changes, if any, has the Government made to contribute to the target to have 50,000 fewer people on the jobseeker benefit by 2030?

On Monday, I announced the launch of the Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD) new work check-in seminars that job seekers who don’t have case managers will need to attend after six months of receiving their benefit, to assess how their job search is going. The point of these seminars is to provide greater support to a larger number of job seekers by ensuring they have more regular contact with MSD. This initiative builds on the new Kōrero Mahi - Let’s Talk Work seminars that job seekers now attend within two weeks of their benefit starting, to plan their next steps for finding work.

Katie Nimon: How many job seekers are in regular contact with MSD now?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: About 190,000 people currently receive the jobseeker support benefit, but only 53,000 have employment case managers assigned to them at any given time. The other 137,000 can go months without talking to MSD about their job search, with some not having to check back in until they reapply for their benefit after 12 months. Increasing the amount of contact these job seekers have with MSD is important to ensure they are taking the right steps to find work and are receiving the right support.

Katie Nimon: What kind of support will these work check-ins provide to job seekers?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: If a job seeker is ready to work, they could be helped to apply for a job straight away. If they need retraining or upskilling, they could be referred to a programme that can help, like getting a driver’s licence. MSD will also make sure their job profiles and CVs are up to date, offer interview tips, and talk through what other support they may need to find work.

Katie Nimon: Why is it important for job seekers to have regular contact with MSD?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The longer someone spends on welfare the harder it is for them to get back into the workforce, so it’s important they stay active in their search for employment. Our Government is concerned about long-term benefit dependency and the number of people who have spent more than a year on jobseeker support, which grew by about 40,000 over the last six years. That’s why we’re making our welfare system much more proactive about checking in on job seekers, to help them get back on their feet quickly.

Question No. 11—Workplace Relations and Safety

11. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Will she take steps to progress work on addressing modern slavery and exploitation in New Zealand’s supply chain; if so, when?

The Government has not made any decisions on progressing work to address modern slavery and exploitation. Modern slavery is a concerning issue that should be appropriately punished where it has occurred. However, I would also stress that regulations are not required for businesses to review their supply chains and ensure that they are free from modern slavery. I’d also like to point out the many measures that are already in place to combat modern slavery practices under this Government. Dealing in slaves is a criminal offence. Trafficking in persons is a criminal offence. Exploitation of unlawful employees and temporary workers is a criminal offence. Coerced marriage or civil union is a criminal offence. Employment law, including breaches such as failing to retain employment records, denying leave, and underpayment of wages are offences, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has published a series of ethical and sustainable work practice resources to help businesses apply ethical and sustainable work practices both within their organisations and across business networks.

Camilla Belich: Do the New Zealand - UK free-trade agreement and the New Zealand - EU free-trade agreement require New Zealand to have specific measures addressing modern slavery in our supply chain?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: We have agreements with both the EU and the UK about modern slavery; however, in my view, the Government’s current practices meet these obligations.

Camilla Belich: Given that answer and that the New Zealand - EU agreement has specific provisions for modern slavery in article 19.12 and the New Zealand - UK free-trade agreement has a specific provision in relation to modern slavery in article 23.9, why has MBIE admitted it is doing no such work to implement such measures?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I’ll just refer to a few of my previous comments. There are a range of criminal offences and offences under New Zealand law that address modern slavery already in place under this Government. Under the UK and EU free-trade agreements, yes, there are requirements about labour laws. It is in my view that our current guidelines and laws meet these obligations. However, I’d also like to suggest that under the previous Government, there was no legislation and there was no work getting anywhere near what that member is suggesting.

Camilla Belich: Is MBIE correct, then, when they said that they ended work on modern slavery that was initiated under the previous Government due to the Minister’s priorities, and, if so, why is modern slavery not a priority for her?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I haven’t asked MBIE to stop work.

Camilla Belich: So is MBIE incorrect when they stated to the Education and Workforce Committee that they were not working on modern slavery due to a decision made by her—that was incorrect?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I’d like to suggest that the advice I received on MBIE’s labour market session last week said, “work paused at the election”, and that’s a question, really, for the member of that member’s party about why the work paused at the election. Since the election, I’ve asked MBIE to focus on my priorities, which it is doing.

Camilla Belich: Does she agree with Christopher Luxon, who said, “There’s something I feel very passionate about: is modern slavery for example. It’s something that I’ve been really passionate about for a long time. That’s something that I think we could do a better job … [on] and have modern slavery legislation and make sure that we’re holding … ourselves to a standard. There are those things that I feel passionate about.”, and if so, why is modern slavery not a priority for this Government?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I stand by the statement made by our Prime Minister, which he also said a few months ago, that at the moment it’s not a priority for us. What is a priority for me is focusing on the issues that really, really matter to New Zealand businesses. If businesses aren’t able to even uphold basic labour market standards such as making sure people have their correct entitlements for holidays pay, we have some serious issues. That Government did not finalise work on holidays pay, and that is one area that is my top priority. We have hundreds if not thousands of Kiwis that are being underpaid their correct entitlements. That is what that member should be focused on—rights for workers here in New Zealand, and that they actually get their correct entitlements paid for by business.

Question No. 12—Building and Construction

12. to the Minister for Building and Construction: What announcements has the Government made about making it easier to build granny flats?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The coalition Government is making it easier to build granny flats and other small structures up to 60 square metres without the need for resource or building consent. We want less red tape and more knitting wool. This announcement is part of the agreement between the National and New Zealand First coalition and fits within the Government’s wider package of work to streamline the building consent system and address the housing crisis.

Tim Costley: Why are these changes needed?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Over a quarter of the households that do not own their own home spend 40 percent or more of their income on housing. High housing costs have a disproportionately high impact on Māori, Pacific, and people with disabilities, as well as seniors—including, of course, grannies. This Government is focused on making it easier to build so we can drive down building costs as part of our pledge to rebuild the economy.

Tim Costley: Are these granny flats only for grannies?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Good question. Anyone can live in a granny flat, including youth—think student flats; think those who are youth-adjacent, for example, workers on a farm or other rural setting; and those who are simply young at heart, including even yourself, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: That’s enough of that question.

Tim Costley: What are the next steps for granny flats?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Because we want to make sure that we get the detail of the changes right, we have published a discussion document with submissions open until 12 August for the public to have their say. They can do that online or by emailing grannyflats@mbie.govt.nz. Since Messrs Peters and Bishop announced the policy, already 1,000 Kiwis have provided feedback on this policy—overwhelmingly positive.