Oral Questions

1. to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Yes, especially my statement that my goal is to ensure that Oranga Tamariki is a truly child-centric care and protection agency where the safety of children is at the forefront of social work practice and decision making.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she agree with the Children’s Commissioner, who said, about bootcamps, that “International and domestic evidence is clear these types of approaches don’t work in the long-term”, or does she completely disagree, like the Prime Minister?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Whilst that isn’t a statement that I myself made, I do agree that we do need to have an holistic approach when it comes to our young people, but I disagree with part of that statement, as well.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she stand by her statement in respect of the 6.5 percent savings that “There will be no financial impact and there has been no impact on the front-line services. This is a guarantee.”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Yes. When we were doing the restructure, 6.5 percent was aimed at back-office staff. Front-line staff were out of scope within this restructure, and I stand by that.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she agree with the Oranga Tamariki chief executive, Chappie Te Kani, when he said, “There is not enough money to meet the needs that we see every day. There just isn’t.”, and, if so, why did she not seek to be excluded from the 6.5 percent savings exercise required by the Minister of Finance?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Whilst there was a 6.5 percent saving, those savings were taken out of the back office and redirected to the front office where there was a lack of resources and tools for front-line staff. Front-line staff are my focus and will continue to be so.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why is she allowing funding to be clawed back from front-line community providers when they say the need is still there and when she stated in Estimates that “We need to make sure that the front-line services are actually being resourced to be able to do their job and do their job well.”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Quite frankly, if there is money left over, it’s not going to sit in the bank accounts of NGOs that haven’t spent it; it’s going to be sent back to the organisation to be redistributed to the ones that need that money.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Will she acknowledge that persistent leaking of documents, the Minister dismissing officials’ advice, Oranga Tamariki lawyers being forced to seek advice from King’s Counsel over a failed restructure, and now headlines about the Oranga Tamariki chief executive officer hitting out at staff are all a clear sign that Oranga Tamariki is imploding under her watch?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Whilst that doesn’t come under the scope of the original question, I will answer that. Actually, I—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: It’s under your watch—your actions.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: It’s not my statement or my actions. You’ve spoken about—

SPEAKER: Excuse me—[Interruption] Can you stop for a minute—just stop. The only person who judges whether it’s in the scope of the question or not is me. If a question is asked and not stopped, assume it’s in scope. Please just give an answer and the rest of the House will listen while the answer is given.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I disagree with the fact that it’s a failed restructure. This restructure is focusing on the front-line staff, making sure they have the tools necessary to do their jobs so that our children are at the centre of every decision that we’re making.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: It’s imploding!

Hon David Seymour: Supplementary—

SPEAKER: Sorry, just a moment. We’re just not going to have these calls out in the middle of a question. You’re right at the edge of it, I admit, but it’s not particularly helpful.

Hon David Seymour: Is it the Minister’s belief that it’s possible to get better results in some areas with less money, and, if so, what are some of the values and initiatives that she’s brought to her leadership of Oranga Tamariki to achieve it?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Yes, we need to actually focus on where the problems lie, and my focus has been on going around visiting organisations to see where the issues and problems lie. Lots were in the youth justice and care and protection facilities, which is where I’m putting a big focus to make sure that our young people come out better than when they went in.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: In the Minister’s answer to my first supplementary question, which part of the question did she disagree with?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Could you repeat the whole question again so that I can give you an answer?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Happy to.

SPEAKER: No—hang on a minute. The question is about the Minister’s answer.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I’m not sure which question she’s asking about.

SPEAKER: Well, sorry, we can’t do that. We could go on for ever doing that. Just give some kind of answer. There must have been a reason why the Minister said what she said.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order. In the most recent supplementary question, Willow-Jean Prime actually asked which part of the question did the Minister disagree with. I’m sure the Minister would probably—

SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Sit down. The Minister’s answer said that she disagreed with part of the question. I remember that very clearly. It’s in the Hansard. The Minister, I’m sure, remembers which part of the question she didn’t agree with.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: From my understanding, part of the question was around a holistic approach from the Children’s Commissioner and the other part was about punitive, and I don’t agree that we’re going down a punitive road.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Point of order. That wasn’t the question.

SPEAKER: Well, then, that’s unfortunate, because that’s the answer. If you’ve got another question, ask it.

Question No. 2—Justice

2. to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions?

on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Yes. I particularly stand by my statement yesterday that the Government is reforming sentencing to ensure criminals face serious consequences for crime, and victims are prioritised.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: What role does he believe Te Tiriti o Waitangi plays in the criminal justice system?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: On behalf of the Minister of Justice, I believe that the Treaty of Waitangi does play some part in our everyday lives. However, what’s more important is that New Zealand society as a whole is protected from serious violent crime, and with the latest New Zealand crime survey results coming out and telling us that there were 1.88 million victims of crime last year in New Zealand, the focus actually needs to be on protecting our communities as a whole.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: How, then, can he justify the removal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi provisions from legislation, especially from legislation that has been designed to address breaches of Te Tiriti within the criminal justice system?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: On behalf of the Minister of Justice, the focus is on our communities and our victims of crime. We will justify any improvements that we can make to legislation to ensure that our communities are safe.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister: if the brightest legal mind in the Māori world back then, Sir Apirana Ngata, who got a law degree in two years flat—a record for any legal student in this country—did not believe that it had a connection, why would somebody with no training think there was one?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: On behalf of the Minister of Justice, I think what we need to do is actually come back to the core responsibility of this Government to protect our communities, to make sure that our victims are recognised, and to lock up those serious criminals who have no respect for the law, for New Zealand, or for victims.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: What changes come into effect on 1 July?

on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Next week, New Zealanders can expect, after six years of struggle, some relief to their back pockets. A number of promises the coalition Government campaigned on will be delivered next week. These changes will be good news for Kiwis who are sick of being punished for daring to drive a car in Auckland or owning a home, and there will be good news for parents who have been slammed by the cost of living crisis.

Tim van de Molen: What benefits will parents see from next week?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, from next Monday, we’re putting more money in the back pockets of Kiwi parents to give them extra support to take precious time off to bond with their newborns. The maximum weekly rate for paid parental leave will increase from $712.17 to $754.87 gross per week. We know many families are struggling with high costs, including childcare. That’s why, starting next week, families with young children will be supported with a partial reimbursement of early childhood education (ECE) fees. Through our FamilyBoost scheme, families can claim up to 25 percent of their ECE fees, to a maximum of $150 per fortnight. This is a major coalition campaign commitment and forms part of our overall tax plan.

Tim van de Molen: What do Aucklanders have to look forward to next week?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, from next week, this Government will be ending the Auckland regional fuel tax. This will make Auckland motorists 11.5c per litre better off, and in difficult times that is a significant saving. Despite abolishing this tax, we are delivering a record investment in transport, including in Auckland, with money set aside to fix and prevent potholes on the State highway and local road network, and funding for public transport services increasing compared to the last three years.

Tim van de Molen: What do homeowners have to look forward to next week?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the tax relief keeps on coming. Brightline tests for residential property goes back to two years on 1 July, ending the previous Government’s stealth capital gains tax. Of course, from 31 July, just the end of next month, more than 1.9 million Kiwi households will benefit on average by $60 per fortnight when our personal income tax relief package comes into effect.

Question No. 4—Revenue

4. to the Minister of Revenue: Is he confident that all wage and salary earners will receive the full tax benefits, as outlined in Budget 2024 and the Tax at a Glance leaflet, on their first pay day on or after 31 July 2024; if not, why not?

Yes. Inland Revenue is working at pace with payroll providers to ensure that every wage and salary earner will get their well-earned tax relief as promised. After 14 years, Kiwis have waited long enough to get their much-awaited tax relief.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why did the Minister elect not to carry the personal income tax threshold changes through to portfolio investment entity (PIE) investor rates or employer superannuation contribution tax (ESCT) rates until 1 April 2025, even though personal income tax thresholds are changing on 31 July 2024?

Hon SIMON WATTS: The two examples provided by that member were highlighted as part of the Budget documents released, and it is correct that the employer superannuation contribution tax will come into effect on 1 April 2025. But the reality is that 3.5 million New Zealanders are going to benefit from personal income tax relief on 31 July, and that side of the House voted against it.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Is the Minister aware that not changing the PIE investor rates or the employer superannuation contribution tax rates until 1 April 2025 means that low-income earners investing in KiwiSaver will be overtaxed by an average of $70 each between 31 July 2024 and 31 March 2025?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, I’ve answered that in my prior question. I said that we are aware of that and that those changes and fixes in regards to the ESCT will come into effect. The amount quoted, around $70.80, is correct, but we’ve signalled that as part of the Budget process. But, again, I remind the member: her party voted against the policies that we are implementing to deliver taxpayers in this country tax relief from 30 July.

Hon Chris Bishop: Is it the case that the House may have seen an incredibly rare occurrence, a Labour MP arguing for tax relief?

SPEAKER: No, that’s not a question. Things like that are not at all helpful.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Is the Minister aware that this over-taxation will lead to KiwiSaver balances being reduced by—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, hang on.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: —700—

SPEAKER: Hold on. Start again, while the House is listening.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is the Minister aware that this over-taxation of low-income earners will lead to KiwiSaver fund balances being reduced by $700 million by 2070?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, firstly, I don’t agree with the premise of the question, because I stated already that the Budget included the assumption that these fixes would come into play from 1 April 2025. So it’s not over-taxation. But what is over-taxation is that side of the House not supporting the tax cuts that this Government has outlined where 3.5 million New Zealanders will benefit by an average of $32 a fortnight. But I’m proud to be part of a Government that has delivered upon our promises.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Is the Minister comfortable with the over-taxation of low-income New Zealanders when it helps the Minister of Finance to balance her Budget?

Hon SIMON WATTS: I mean, this is a little bit tiresome but I will reinforce the point that on this side of the House we believe that hard-working Kiwis deserve to keep more of what they earn. What is clear on that side of the House is that they do not believe in that premise. I tell you what: New Zealanders are pretty smart; they will follow the aspect that makes sense for them.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister—

SPEAKER: Just wait till the House is prepared to listen.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, they will be. Would it have been easier to handle this matter of tax cuts had the Government not had to wrestle with the squanderous $25 billion excess spending of the last three years?

SPEAKER: No, that’s another one of those questions that’s kind of interesting but—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: And it’s true.

SPEAKER: Well, that will be the member’s assertion, and if that’s the case, the whole House knows it. So we don’t need to hear it again.

Question No. 5—Social Development and Employment

5. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she support disabled people being paid as low as $2 per hour due to minimum wage exemptions; if not, why did she discontinue the wage supplement that would replace exemptions while protecting existing jobs?

Yes, the minimum wage exemption scheme supports disabled people to gain the rewards and social connections that come from work that they may not otherwise have the opportunity to obtain. The majority of disabled people covered by the exemption scheme receive the supported living payment, so this income is on top of their benefit payment. This means for a single person on the supported living payment, $403 a week plus up to the $180 a week from their supplementary work. I disagree with the assertion that the wage supplement would have protected jobs. Many enterprises dedicated to enhancing the employment prospects of severely disabled people said the wage supplement would put pressure on their operating model, reducing their ability to provide to disabled New Zealanders a job.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she acknowledge that around 96 percent of these workers work for business enterprises, and is she comfortable with massive corporations such as Air New Zealand benefiting from the labour of workers who earn just $2.30 an hour for doing work they can do without?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Yes, the disability enterprises across New Zealand are all charitable organisations and their main purpose is supporting people with disabilities to be in employment, and they are free to choose to work there or not.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How exactly can a wage supplement, which would act as a top-up for employers and designed to protect existing jobs, result in job losses for disabled people?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The disability enterprises have been really clear about their concerns about what was proposed by the previous Government, and, actually, our party had campaigned very clearly on retaining the status quo, because we want to see those enterprises that are a significant part of our communities do well and continue to employ disabled people and give them opportunities they otherwise wouldn’t have.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she stand by her statement in defence of cutting the waste supplement that “a group of New Zealanders, who have significant challenges and would clearly produce less than someone else, may well be shut out of employment.”, and, if so, how would the wage supplement have resulted in job losses when it is a top-up to the employer’s contributions?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, the disability enterprises themselves raised concerns. And just so that the House is aware of how the minimum wage exemption works, there is a labour inspectorate who assesses the person’s ability and their productivity in terms of the role that’s proposed. They set a wage in that instance of which the person has the opportunity to accept or not. I stand by my statement. For me, it is incredibly important that we focus on what New Zealanders can do and what they can’t, and I want to ensure that more New Zealanders have the opportunity to be in work. For a very small number—I’m talking nine—there is a top-up to what they are receiving in terms of their supported living payment.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Did she seek or receive any advice on how many job losses would have resulted as a result of implementing the wage supplement, and, if so, how many job losses would have resulted as a result of implementing the wage supplement?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I stand by my comments. The disability enterprises are a significant part of our communities. They are charitable organisations; without their existence we would not be able to provide those employment opportunities. While that member may not appreciate it is a small number of people, I value each and every single one of those disabled people and want to ensure they have the opportunities to be in work.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why does she keep insisting that the wage supplement would have resulted in job losses when it is a top-up for employers and she is not able to substantiate how many job losses that wage supplement would have resulted in?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because—as I said in my primary answer, if the member had listened—many enterprises who are dedicated to enhancing the employment prospects of severely disabled people said the wage supplement would put pressure on their operating model, reducing their ability to provide disabled New Zealanders a job. The member doesn’t seem to understand that with the wage supplement, there are more costs involved in employing somebody. And this is not about a saving; this is about protecting disability enterprises. They are an important part of our community who provide very important opportunities that disabled people can choose to participate in and work there.

Question No. 6—Transport

6. to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made about land transport investment in New Zealand?

Today, I released the final Government policy statement (GPS) on land transport, a $22 billion plan over the next three years which will deliver on our transport commitments. This GPS is already delivering for New Zealanders, and will continue to do so by bringing back the successful roads of national significance programme. It invests substantially more in road maintenance and invests significantly more in reliable public transport.

Joseph Mooney: How is the Government policy statement investing in pothole prevention on State highways?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Oh, good question. Our Government has created a new pothole prevention fund activity class that is ring-fenced to resealing, rehabilitating, and the drainage on the maintenance of our roads to prevent those pesky potholes from forming. Over $2 billion has already been allocated to the pothole prevention fund for State highways across the country—a 91 percent increase in funding compared to the spend in the last three years.

Joseph Mooney: How is the Government policy statement investing in pothole prevention on local roads?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: More good news: almost $2 billion has been allocated to local road pothole prevention to prevent pesky potholes from forming—a 50 percent increase in funding from over the last three years. Compared to spend in the previous three years, we’re increasing local road pothole prevention funding by 74 percent in Auckland, 61 percent in the Bay of Plenty, 38 percent in Canterbury, and 40 percent in Southland. This investment will deliver real results for Kiwis travelling on our roads.

Joseph Mooney: How is the Government policy statement delivering for public transport users?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, even more good news. There is great news for public transport users across the country, with our Government delivering a 41 percent boost in funding for public transport services and operations to help Kiwis have more travel choices, particularly in our main cities. We are a Government of delivery, and we’re committed to delivering reliable public transport services for New Zealand. The last Government—they might have spent their time on a ghost bridge across the harbour; we’re actually going to get things done.

Question No. 7—Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence

7. to the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence: Does she stand by her statement regarding the development of a family violence reduction target, “I didn’t feel it was appropriate to have a target in this space”; if so, is the reason she did not feel it was appropriate because justice sector Ministers were advised that family violence victimisations are unlikely to change over a 3- to 6-month period?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes, I stand by my statement. In answer to the second part of the question, no, because family and sexual violence is a focus for this Government. That is why the justice sector Ministers agreed that family and sexual violence is measured under the target to reduce violent crime by having 20,000 fewer people as victims of assaults, robberies, and sexual assaults by 2029. If you listen to the people who work in this space, like I do, they say it wouldn’t be appropriate, for example, to have a target like the number of reported rapes or sexual assaults because, actually, we know this is an under-reported issue. An increase in reporting would be a good thing because that means more feel confident in coming forward in knowing that the support services they need will be available for them, which is what my focus is.

Hon Ginny Andersen: On what date was she advised than an incident-based family violence target can be reliably measured through the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Sorry, can you just repeat that?

Hon Ginny Andersen: On what date was she advised that an incident-based family violence target can be reliably measured through the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: If you would like a specific date, you can put that question in writing and I can get that to you.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Can she confirm that she received advice from Te Puna Aonui that stated, “Family violence victimisation—

SPEAKER: Sorry, wait on—just wait. Now you can ask the question, because people are listening.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Can she confirm that she received advice from Te Puna Aonui that stated, “Family violence victimisation can in fact be reliably measured through the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey. However, it was not possible to develop a Government target due to public sector Budget cuts possibly shifting the survey from yearly to every second year.”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I can’t remember all the advice that was in there, but I can speak to the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey, which is an excellent survey because it takes on board people who come forward and share their experiences with how the system has wrapped around them and what supports they have been able to get. This is something that will be very crucial when it comes to looking at how we are achieving in this space in the future.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How does she explain to the victims of family and sexual violence that it was not possible for her Government to measure progress for family violence because of their own Budget cuts?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I would actually disagree with that statement. It is possible to measure that through the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey. We are focused on having 20,000 fewer people as victims of assaults, robberies, and serious sexual assaults by 2029, and that is a commitment we intend to keep.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How does she expect to “break the cycle of violence for the safety and wellbeing of all New Zealanders” when her Government was not able to set a family violence target due to Budget cuts, provided zero additional funding for family violence in the Budget, and agreed for police to step back from family violence 111 calls without any additional support services being in place?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: We did set a target—it was under the justice sector Ministers—which was to reduce by 20,000 fewer people to be victims of assault, robberies, and sexual assaults. I disagree there wasn’t a target.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to draw to your attention Standing Order 396—I believe—which says that a question should not contain imputations, arguments, or information beyond that that is necessary to make the question intelligible. Now, in that question and an earlier one from Willow-Jean Prime, we’ve had four and then three assertions made within the question. Now, if you want questions to be a way of making arguments, that’s one thing, but it’s not consistent with the Standing Orders and it’s now a pattern.

SPEAKER: You are absolutely right, if the letter of the Standing Order was followed—there’s no question about that. But then, again, those Standing Orders that deal with questions also equally deal with answers, and so there is a little bit of give and take. I personally thought that the Minister was answering the questions about an assertion quite strongly, so I didn’t feel there was a need to interfere with the flow of the House.

Question No. 8—Agriculture

8. to the Minister of Agriculture: What actions has the Government taken to support the primary sector?

Well, the Government is absolutely committed to meeting our climate change obligations. However, it just doesn’t make sense to shut down Kiwi farms and send jobs and production overseas so that less carbon-efficient countries produce the food that the world needs. The Government, therefore, is delivering on its election commitments to take agriculture out of the emissions trading scheme (ETS), to disestablish He Waka Eke Noa, and to restore confidence in the sector. Instead, the Government will engage directly with a small group of industry leaders through a new pastoral sector group, and today we have announced we have commissioned an independent review of the science and targets of methane against additional warming so that farmers will know exactly what it is they need to achieve.

Suze Redmayne: Is the Government committed to reducing agricultural emissions?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Yes, and that’s why the Government is investing further in R & D development to develop practical tools, with $400 million being committed over the next four years to accelerate the commercialisation of tools and technology to reduce on-farm emissions, including an additional $50.5 million funding for the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre. Just this week, the Government and the BNZ announced an additional $8 million commitment towards AgriZero to boost New Zealand’s efforts to reduce agricultural emissions with the development of technology like methane vaccines; a project to lower-emissions cattle, something so that the Opposition members produce less hot air; and accelerate the work of methane and nitrous oxide. We are investing heavily in research and development to provide farmers with tools to reduce methane, not to reduce productivity.

Suze Redmayne: What more is the Government doing to support the rural economy?

SPEAKER: I’m sure there’s plenty but keep it a concise answer.

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, we’ve heard loud and clear concerns from farmers and growers with the role that banks have played over recent years. Promoting robust competition in the banking sector is vital to rebuilding the economy and that’s why the Government has written to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and the Primary Production Committee to undertake an inquiry into banking competition, including rural banking. Growing the rural economy is critical to rebuilding New Zealand’s economy, and with farmer satisfaction and banking services dropping over recent years, it’s critical that we better understand the role that the bank competition can play for the rural sector.

Suze Redmayne: What else has the Government announced to support our rural communities?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, the National - ACT - New Zealand First coalition Government knows that local issues require local solutions. That’s why we’ve also announced that we will be backing farmers to improve land management practices and water quality, with further commitment to support locally led catchment groups. Catchment groups and collectors are an integral and vital part in rebuilding an expert-driven economy, so the Government is committing $36 million to support these groups, with $7 million of this going directly to catchment groups across the country.

Question No. 9—Conservation

9. to the Minister of Conservation: Does he agree that every Government, no matter their politics, has a duty of care on behalf of all New Zealanders in the conservation of Te Taiao?

on behalf of the Minister of Conservation: I expect that every New Zealander, including every member of this House, feels an innate desire to protect our conservation values in this country, and as the Minister of Conservation, I have a statutory responsibility to do so that I am determined to uphold.

Lan Pham: Does he think that his duty of care is being upheld when he decided to cut the successful Jobs for Nature programme, which has brought immeasurable benefits to te taiao; enabled iwi, hapū, and communities to regenerate nature; and employed thousands of people?

Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister, the Jobs for Nature programme included work streams that were always time limited. That was the case under the previous Government under which they were established; that remains the case now, and unallocated funding being discontinued is not inconsistent with that.

Lan Pham: Is he concerned that his duty of care to protect biodiversity and taonga species is threatened by the Minister for the Environment’s decision to cut over $600 million from Vote Environment, gut her own ministry, and scrap 500 staff roles?

Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister of Conservation, I obviously reject the premise and the characterisation of that question. My fellow Ministers and I are obviously determined to achieve conservation and other Government priorities. Part of that is reprioritising within the portfolios to ensure that the spending available—noting that no Government has ever had an unlimited budget in these matters—is deployed to maximum effect by concentrating on the areas with which we can make most difference to the conservation estate.

Lan Pham: Is he concerned that his duty of care to protect marine species is threatened by the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries’ proposal to disregard environmental risks and community voice through a blanket extension of every single marine farm in the country for 20 years?

Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister of Conservation, obviously I reject the characterisation of the actions and the statements and the responsibilities as executed faithfully by that ministerial colleague.

Lan Pham: Does he think his duty of care is threatened by the Government’s decision to override core environmental laws, our proud history of democratic process, and our founding document of Te Tiriti through the Fast-track Approvals Bill, all for the sake of industry profit?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Again on behalf of the Minister of Conservation, and again those characterisations are not even close to being accurate. In relation to the democratic participation element, just to pick on that aspect of the question, it’s the case that the relevant select committee has been engaged in hearing submissions on that very point, which rather undermines the member’s point. It’s precisely because we have that ability for democratic participation that the select committee will form a view on the bill as a whole, including any amendments that it might propose, and the Government will consider those in due course.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, you’ll have observed in the last question and the one before that that this member’s habit is to get up and make a lot of comments that she cannot authenticate, and in this House you’re required to be able to authenticate to the House or the Speaker if you’re challenged. Those statements about the four changes were not true then and they’re not true in the future.

SPEAKER: Well, that would be an interesting point of order if it were in line with the Standing Orders. Supplementary questions merely have to follow on from answers given to a primary question. I listened to that very, very carefully. Sometimes we let stuff go because of the flow of the House, but I don’t believe those questions were as far out of order as was being suggested.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Is there a further point?

Ricardo Menéndez March: It’s a point of order, yeah. If I heard correctly—and I just wanted to check because I was trying to pay attention—did I just hear the Rt Hon Winston Peters imply that my colleague was lying by claiming that—

SPEAKER: No, no, you didn’t hear that. You heard him questioning the relativity of the question to the Standing Orders, which is quite reasonable. I call Lan Pham.

Hon David Seymour: Supplementary—

SPEAKER: This better be good. Is it new?

Hon David Seymour: Supplementary—yes. Is it—

SPEAKER: Well, hang on, I’ve called Lan Pham.

Hon David Seymour: Well, it better be good, then.

SPEAKER: Just everyone go back to being quiet and listening to a question.

Lan Pham: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What in his department’s environmental reporting and monitoring has he seen to support the Minister for the Environment’s claim that “we consider the balance [has] swung too far towards environmental protection”?

Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister of Conservation, fellow Ministers and I are determined to ensure that we achieve real-world outcomes that are better for the environment but also better for the economy. This need not be a false choice. We can actually improve the environment in a way that reflects good, sustainable development and management principles, and that’s what we determine to continue to do.

Hon David Seymour: Is it the Minister’s view that wealthy countries are able to put more resource into conservation, and his duty of care to the planet and the people of this country will be so much better discharged with sound economic management under this Government?

Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister of Conservation, that is indeed the evidence that we see worldwide. Countries that can afford to expend their resources in terms of protecting the environment, invariably are able to do so in a way that countries that are poorer simply cannot, and that feeds into the bigger-picture work of the Government of rebuilding the economy so that we have resources to do precisely this kind of thing.

Question No. 10—Māori Development

10. to the Minister for Māori Development: What reports, if any, has he seen regarding his support for cuts to Matariki funding by 45 percent in Budget ‘24?

on behalf of the Minister for Māori Development: I can advise that he has not seen any reports regarding his support for such cuts, given that the appropriation in which Matariki funding sits is with the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. But on the matter of cuts, I would say that what should have been cut was the bubble and squeak from the young man from Ngāti Toa who I thought did a gross disservice last night in this Parliament lecturing Matua about Matariki.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I cannot let that go. It was well out of order. It was gratuitous, and it’s what we expect—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment! Points of order are heard in silence.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: That was entirely gratuitous, wildly out of order, and simply disorderly, and I simply can’t let that go.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m sure that you can’t let it go; I’ve got to decide what to do with it. So, what is your petition?

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Mr Speaker, I would request that you take action in respect of that kind of gratuitous and outrageous swipe.

SPEAKER: Yes, I think it would be appropriate to withdraw that comment.

Hon SHANE JONES: Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark, but I’ll be back to see you in your office.

SPEAKER: Lock the doors!

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: If he won’t apologise, throw him out. Get rid of him.

SPEAKER: I’m sorry, I’m hearing from my left the comment that there should have been an apology. There’s no apology necessary. There was no offensive remark made. There was a comment that was outside the strict bounds of the question answer. Simple.

Hon Peeni Henare: What is the rationale for cutting much-needed funding for Matariki events when, according to reports from Ministry for Culture and Heritage, they have seen year-on-year increases in economic spend in the regions?

Hon SHANE JONES: Matariki was created as a holiday by the last regime. This regime has inherited a straightened set of economic circumstances. Money will still be made available for Matariki, but Matariki has to serve the purposes of every single New Zealander, not add to the ideological fervour of younger Māori who want to dismember the Treaty.

Hon Peeni Henare: What does he say to the organisers of the Matariki Pēwhairangi festival who have said, and I quote, “Many businesses feel that it has been a slap in the face. People get angry about funding, thinking it’s some kind of handout, but all [of] that money circulates back [into the economy].”

Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, as a regional champion, I’m pained by the note that Tai Tokerau might be denied money through Matariki, but I would have thought that that problem was more related to the protracted time frame that it’s taken to open up the Brynderwyns, which fortunately opened up last night.

Hon Peeni Henare: How would the Minister rate his performance in terms of delivering for Māori in Budget ’24, or are Māori best advised to put their hopes in the Matariki star, Hiwa-i-te-Rangi?

SPEAKER: So much as the Minister believes he’s got some responsibility for the material put in the question, he may give an answer to the House.

Hon SHANE JONES: There are a host of references and allocations that have been made specifically to Māori outcomes, not the least of which is Matatini. And, of course, the full extent and breadth of the $1.2 billion regional growth fund will be made available next week.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: It comes back to this side—so Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Kia ora. Tēnā rā koe, e te Pīka. Supplementary to that question, what does the Minister say to the Matariki festival organisers in Pēwhairangi who said, “We were not informed this funding would not be renewed. We sent emails and tried to contact … [the ministry]. Then last week, the funding page was quietly deleted.”?

Hon SHANE JONES: I tēnei wā kua mimiti te haere o te pūtea. Kei pōhēhē a wai rānei i roto i te hapori e pūhake ana te pūtea, ahakoa Matariki, ahakoa hauora, ahakoa ratonga, me mōhio te Whare kua mimiti haere te pūtea.

[At this time the funding is drying up. Let no one in the community be mistaken that the funding is overflowing. Whether it be Matariki, health, or services, the House should be aware that the funding is drying up.]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister, with respect to the supplementary question put by the Hon Peeni Henare, how could he possibly, as a Māori Minister, rate himself when it is known that the kūmara never says how sweet it is, and before we start posturing about Māori culture, how about learning some basics about Māori culture?

Hon SHANE JONES: I am a rare kūmara. And, of course, the tribe that the member belongs to use the word tukau. I will not boast of sweetness. You will judge me by my results. Thank you very much.

SPEAKER: You may be a rare kūmara; it’s just we’re lucky he’s not tasty.

Hon Peeni Henare: What list does Matariki and other Māori initiatives belong to, the A list or the C list, and does ‘C’ stand for “See you later; ka kite”?

Hon SHANE JONES: These matters should be dealt with in a serious manner. It has become a habit for such institutions to be trivialised, misrepresented, and I think that the fact the Matariki holiday is now a feature of our calendar—in the right way, more Kiwis are embracing it. But I’d also remind the member that the word Matariki is in the Book of Job. It’s as old as the Bible.

SPEAKER: Yes, and I think that answer was a confusion between the stars of Matariki and the road to Damascus.

Question No. 11—Building and Construction

11. to the Minister for Building and Construction: What announcements has the Government made about building and construction?

The Government has published the terms of reference for the review into earthquake-prone buildings. These demonstrate the Government’s commitment to ensuring that we get the balance right between public safety and costs to building owners. The review will be extensive and will report back to the Government in the first half of 2025.

Mike Butterick: Why do we need to review the earthquake-prone building system?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Because the Government is focused on reinvigorating our cities and regions to support economic growth. Buildings sitting empty and abandoned for years will be negative for everyone. Buildings in that kind of state can be dangerous, but they are also a handbrake on growth and development. Improving the way we manage the risks of earthquakes will be beneficial for everyone, from our largest cities to our smallest regional towns that are the backbone of New Zealand.

Mike Butterick: What will the review be focused on?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The review will focus on, among other things, the cost of mitigating earthquake risk and improving buildings’ resilience; proposals for managing earthquake risk, as affecting building owners; barriers in the types of incentives that would help building owners better manage seismic risk; and changes that align with broader Government objectives, such as going for housing growth and rebuilding the economy.

Mike Butterick: Can Kiwis have their say on the review?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Yes, they certainly can. That includes all those across the political aisle within central government but also those in local government who have key roles to play in the system as it currently exists. The public can provide their feedback and share their views via the building.govt.nz site.

Question No. 12—Conservation

12. to the Minister of Conservation: Does he stand by all his statements made at the Estimates hearing of the Environment Committee on 18 June?

on behalf of the Minister of Conservation: Yes, in the context that they were given.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What work, if any, has he done to determine the cost of avoiding species extinction, given his statement “we have to be very careful before we say every single species is going to be saved. We have to be very mindful that that comes at a cost which up until this point in time, no one has figured out.”

Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister of Conservation, I note, first of all, that the Department of Conservation has a world-renowned threat classification system. Obviously, considerations need to be taken into account such as the number of different locations within New Zealand that endangered species exist and where extinction is threatened. Obviously, some are in greater need in terms of the sheer numbers involved, such as the number of breeding pairs of endangered birds, for example. I do note, however, that there have been considerable successes over the time of successive Governments, such as the dial being turned, so to speak, in relation to takahē and kākāpō. These are positive steps and we’re focused on maximising the resources that we have to protect the conservation estate.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: So how can he say that saving every at-risk species without a costing is “ very myopic and short-sighted”, when he has also said, at the same hearing, that there was no costing?

Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister of Conservation, it’s impossible to quantify exactly the cost of saving all species. I would encourage all members of this House, including the member asking the question, to take a long-term view of the problem and to be quite clear-headed about the need to prioritise resources that will achieve the best possible effect in terms of protecting New Zealand’s conservation. I don’t think there’s anything controversial about that.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Does he agree with Nicola Toki, chief executive of Forest & Bird, “It’s incredibly concerning to hear the conservation minister say that avoiding species extinction is ‘very aspirational’ and that we need to somehow put a price on saving species that are only found here in Aotearoa New Zealand”; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister of Conservation, obviously, I do not share Ms Toki’s view in that regard, but I welcome her and every other New Zealander who has a view in the matter to express it. I think, however, as Minister, I’ve been quite right to emphasise the importance of prioritising species that exist only in New Zealand, and I make no apology for doing so.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why should New Zealanders have confidence in him as conservation Minister when he has so little ambition for protecting our biodiversity and has allowed over $100 million in cuts to the Department of Conservation?

Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister of Conservation, obviously, I reject the premise of the question. Clearly, I am focused, as are my fellow Government Ministers, on maximising the outcomes—and I emphasise outcomes as opposed to merely funding in the hope of achieving outcomes—and for that reason, I am very clearly focused on ensuring we understand exactly what is required and to deliver exactly that.

I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill. I’d just ask those members who are going back to various other bits of business to leave the House quietly, please.