Oral Questions

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

Yes, and especially this Government’s efforts to rebuild the economy after years of economic mismanagement. The huge increase in spending in recent years has pushed inflation higher, interest rates higher, it’s kneecapped economic growth, and it’s sent unemployment higher as well. It’s obvious that we need a new approach, which is why we’re taking action to make doing business in New Zealand easier, whether it’s building, construction, farming, or financial services. So whether you’re a farmer or a tradie, an entrepreneur or an innovator, my message is simple: we’re a Government for you.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Have representatives of the four peak bodies representing building and construction firms written to his Government expressing concern that his Government’s decision to cancel or defer projects is leading to a significant slow-down in work, a collapse in business confidence, and the risk of an exodus of skilled workers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m aware that they have, but we have a big pipeline coming of infrastructure, which we’ve started to talk about.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did those same infrastructure providers express concern that his Government’s rhetoric isn’t matched by action, in particular, stating, “many hundreds of businesses [are] caught in this gap between intention and getting work to the starting line”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I can reassure them and what I have reassured them is to say that this is a Government that’s going to get things built in this country. We don’t believe in phantom projects. We don’t believe in taking six years to do Auckland light rail—to think about it, to talk about it, to do some Post-it note sessions, to have a lovely strategy. We don’t believe in Let’s Get Wellington Moving, that didn’t get Wellington moving. We don’t believe in Lake Onslow, which was a phantom Post-it note idea as well. We believe in getting things done in this country. We’re going to build a 30-year pipeline of proper projects, not just ideas, and we’re going to get things done.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has he asked for an estimate of the economic impact on the building and construction sector of the Government’s decision to stop, pause, or defer projects like school rebuilds and upgrades, hospital rebuilds and expansions, road works, water infrastructure improvements, and public transport investments; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I’d just say to that member is that the school infrastructure and buildings programme was a very interesting one to be inheriting coming into Government, because it’s lovely, again, to go off and say the words, but you actually have to follow up with a plan, and, ideally, you’ve got to have the money there to do it, and that didn’t happen for 350 school buildings, sadly.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was whether the Prime Minister has asked for an analysis of the economic impact on the businesses affected by those decisions. I don’t think the Prime Minister came even close to addressing that.

SPEAKER: Well, the only problem is that the primary question asks if he stands by all of his Government’s statements and actions. And while that might be an action that you’re questioning, as soon as he said that he didn’t have any money, that was probably the end of the position. But I tell you what, I’ll give you an extra question to be able to tease things out a bit further, if you can.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does he plan to provide local authorities with the resources they need to bridge the infrastructure gap they currently have, or will he continue to leave them, as the industry told his Government, in “challenging financial predicaments”, with “a lack of funds or a need to await direction or decisions from central government before proceeding with planned works.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I think the member is really—it’s an outrageous set of questions from this member, who has talked a big game and delivered so little, right? Let’s take an example of local government funding and financing, if you want to do that. How much do you reckon the previous Government spent on three waters? $1.2 billion. Do you think there was any improvement in the three waters assets? Nope. What did we do? We partnered with local government, we found a solution for Auckland Watercare, and we’ve got a great outcome. Now Auckland Watercare has certainty and a pipeline of future projects; Auckland Council has $800 million to spend on other infrastructure. We have plans. We don’t just do bumper stickers and slogans; we get things done.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister as to whether or not his Government’s plan is to build on the plan that was made yesterday by Mr Hipkins that the last Labour Government had built more houses since the 1960s, or was a totally baseless plan from them and as shallow as most of his statements?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I can say in answer to that member’s question is that Kāinga Ora debt went up $10 billion, the social housing wait-list went up four times, house prices went up, I think, over 50 percent, and average rents went up $180 a week. So either way you look at it, the previous Labour Government failed on housing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If his plan is so successful, why are 70 percent of building and construction firms expecting to see increased attrition over the next 12 months because of his Government’s inability to provide certainty to the sector?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I would just say—I mean, it’s quite outrageous. You had six years in Government, and you did nothing. You drove inflation up, you drove interest rates up, you put the economy into recession for four of the last five quarters, and you have the audacity to ask me economic questions. Give me a break.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he adopt the infrastructure sector’s suggestion that the Government pursue an accelerated and immediate package of renewals work, particularly in the water and transport sector, to bridge the gap, retain essential skills and knowledge within the New Zealand border, and attract top-tier infrastructure construction talent to New Zealand?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I’d just say to you—to the member—that there are 62,000 potholes that we inherited from the previous administration. We’re working very hard on renewals and maintenance. And, importantly, we’re working on a 30-year pipeline of proper infrastructure projects, not Post-it note ideas. We’re working on 10-year city and regional deals, which we’ll be talking about shortly, and we want to form a national infrastructure agency that gets the right funding and financing tools so that, actually, local government and central government can work together instead of the Punch and Judy show that happened under your watch.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is there more economic activity in the building and construction sector today than there was six months ago?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah, well, I’ll just say to that member, thank you very much for overspending by 84 percent Government spending, thank you for driving up inflation to record highs, thank you for driving up interest rates to record highs, thank you for putting the economy into recession for four of the last five quarters, and thank you for raising unemployment—no wonder construction firms are doing it tough, as are many, many New Zealanders. And wait for the Budget, tomorrow, delivered by an excellent finance Minister, to find out how you run an economy. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: It’s done. Calm those outbursts down quite considerably.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I’d like you to review this question exchange, because every—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: I tell you what: points of order are heard in silence, and everyone in the House will observe that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —Mr Speaker, because every question that I asked the Prime Minister was about his Government and the actions taken by his Government, and every answer didn’t address the question by talking about his Government; they talked about the previous Government. Now, while I accept that question time is a robust exchange, the Prime Minister should at least make some effort. This is a big issue. The building and construction sector have written to the Government with a list of concerns that I think are legitimate concerns that they deserve to have answers on, and I have raised some of those in the House today. I don’t think it’s unreasonable that the Prime Minister should address the actions of his Government, rather than the previous Government. He has been the Prime Minister for over six months now.

SPEAKER: I will review it, but in the light of the primary question itself.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, in the context they were given.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his statement, “I want all New Zealanders to be able to flourish in this country. I want everybody to be able to realise their potential”, and, if so, does he think that it is fair that the average New Zealander pays double the effective tax rate of the wealthiest 311 families in this country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I’d say to that member is that’s why we come to politics. We want every New Zealand child to have a great future; we want them to be able to realise their potential and realise their version of the Kiwi Dream, whatever that may be.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree with the statement of Christopher Luxon, “How much the wealthy own or don’t own is irrelevant to actually middle New Zealand”, and, if so, what level of inequality is he comfortable with?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that’s why we’ve got to make sure we rebuild the economy: so that we can actually afford the public services so that we can deal with issues of inequality across New Zealand.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How tough was the choice to make changes to benefit indexation that his official advice says will put 13,000 more New Zealand children in poverty?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree. What we’ve done is made sure that beneficiaries—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: No, you can’t disagree; the advice says it will.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —are no worse—well, we’ve made sure that beneficiaries are no worse off by the effects of inflation and the cost of living. Their benefits will be adjusted by inflation.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How tough was the choice to roll back smoke-free protections, which will result, ultimately, in more New Zealanders dying from smoking than otherwise would have, in order to generate half a billion dollars more in Government revenue?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are determined to deliver on the Smokefree 2025 goals. What’s been impressive is, under the legislation that we’ve put back in place, daily smoking rates have fallen from 8.6 percent to 6.8 percent. We’re well on our way to 5 percent—that’s our goal.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How tough was the choice to hand $2.9 billion in tax cuts to landlords?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It’s important that we increase the supply of rental property and that renters don’t end up being slugged with more costs. That’s why we’re actually delivering interest deductibility, revisiting the brightline test, and balancing the laws between landlords and tenants: because we care about renters. And I’d hope that member would do the same.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister as to whether he cares or not what his primary answer might be when someone comes to the House with a written primary question and five written supplementaries so that nothing that the Prime Minister might say would have any bearing on what she thought of what the first answer was?

SPEAKER: Yeah, no. It’s not a place for the Prime Minister to reflect on—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yeah, but she’s reading out her questions.

SPEAKER: Well, you’ve got the point out, but the answer’s not required.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: What impending announcements is she planning on the Budget?

Tomorrow at 2 p.m., I will be announcing the Budget itself. Alongside my Budget speech, there are a number of documents that provide information on the Budget, ranging from high-level summaries to very detailed, line-by-line descriptions of changes to appropriations. These include the Estimates documents, the summary of initiatives, Treasury’s Budget Economic and Fiscal Update, the Fiscal Strategy Report, the child poverty report, and the Budget At a Glance pamphlet. Compared to recent years, there will be less verbiage, fewer pretty pictures, and a lot more substance.

Nancy Lu: What new spending initiatives will be in the Budget?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That will be revealed tomorrow, but I should point out to members that this year’s Budget will look quite different from those in the recent past. Recent Budgets—[Interruption] They’re all very excited today; they’re looking forward to tomorrow as much as we are. Recent Budgets have tended to be long lists of spending increases. Tomorrow’s Budget will include new targeted discretionary spending, but it will also contain lots of savings, lots of reprioritisation, and—spoiler alert—it will contain tax relief.

Nancy Lu: How will the Government pay for these measures?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: All the elements I just mentioned—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Can we just calm it slightly. At least let a start be made before there’s the usual objection to the content of the answer.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker, this all bodes very well for tomorrow. All of the elements I just mentioned—new discretionary spending, savings, reprioritisation, and tax relief—are contained within the Budget operating allowance. Members may recall that the previous Government set an operating allowance of $3.5 billion for Budget 2024.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What’s your operating allowance?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We will do a lot better than that, member Woods. I said in the Budget Policy Statement in March that the operating allowance for Budget 2024 will be less than $3.5 billion, and it will be.

Nancy Lu: What commentary has she seen on tomorrow’s Budget?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’ve seen so much commentary on the Budget. But I did have my attention particularly drawn to one commentor’s explanation of why tax relief will take demand out of the economy and reduce inflationary pressure. That commentator said, “One thing [that] we know is that with tax cuts, and the slowing economy, there will be less money circulating”. The commentator went on to say, “As it will be the better-off who will get more money from tax cuts,”—apparently—“the likelihood is much of that money will be spent on overseas trips, so won’t be spent in our economy.” This commentator went on to say, “There is always a contingency built in, called an operating allowance, which is for emergencies.” And to justify New Zealand’s ballooning public debt, this commentator said, “Sometimes it’s necessary to borrow money; it took the United Kingdom sixty years to pay for World War Two, and imagine how long Ukraine will be paying off the cost of defending themselves against Russia.” Members opposite should probably know, all of this came from the commentator, the writer of the Ōhāriu newsletter, Greg O’Connor.

SPEAKER: Just before we go any further, right at the start of this parliamentary year, I made it very clear that it was inappropriate for Government to use question time to attack either the Opposition or other MPs. That was a very serious transgression—don’t do it again.

Hon Members: Aww!

SPEAKER: That’s a severe telling off at this stage.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: We beat you fair and square, Nicola.

SPEAKER: And we’re silent; we’re all quiet.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who made that rule?

SPEAKER: I just did.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, you can’t.

SPEAKER: I just can.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You’re Parliament’s man.

SPEAKER: That’s right.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, not your own man—

SPEAKER: No, no—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —you’re Parliament’s man.

SPEAKER: —that’s right, and I’m thinking about the whole of Parliament.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Look, I think members may have misjudged that I was making it up; I seek leave to table the document.

SPEAKER: No, no. The Hon Marama Davidson.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will the pending announcements she is planning on the Budget ensure the June 2024 child poverty target is met?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: There will be a child poverty report that will report against those targets, and the member will be able to read it tomorrow.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does she accept advice from the Ministry of Social Development that “Increases in public housing supply need to be at a very large scale to result in significant movement of child poverty rates.”, and, if so, can we expect to see a large increase in the Kāinga Ora build programme?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I’d make two comments. The first is, I think it would be a bit rich for the member to expect that in six months of Government, we would then take responsibility for six years of actions which have contributed to the levels of child poverty today. The second comment I would make is this: when it comes to housing, she was a member of a Government that oversaw a quadrupling in the State house waiting list, she was the Minister of homelessness while thousands of children went to bed each night in a motel room, and it all got worse on their watch. So this side of the House will not be lectured by that member and her colleagues about how to deliver housing for children.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Fa’afetai tele lava, Mr Speaker. Will her Budget be a success if families do not get the $250 per fortnight as outlined in the fiscal plan and if it causes inflation to stay higher for longer?

From my experience, Ministers of Finance always describe their Budgets as a success, and while there are some traditions I intend not to follow tomorrow, this tradition of delivering a Budget that is, and is described as, successful is a tradition I intend to stick to.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will the official Government tax calculator produce the same figures for the same individual circumstances as the tax calculator provided by their fiscal plan?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, naturally, the member will have to wait to see until tomorrow, but I have been advised of this: the tax calculator will deliver far, far bigger numbers of relief than would have been delivered by that group of people.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will low-income earners get more than what was promised in their fiscal plan, like landlords have through their $2.9 billion tax break?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Low-income workers will be far, far better off with this Government’s economic management than they were under six years of Labour’s big-spending, big-inflation ways.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she understand the economic principle that even if fiscally neutral, a timing mismatch between savings and spending will cause inflation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I do understand economic principles, and one of those economic principles is that when inflation is roaring at a massive high—as it was in 2022, at 7.3 percent—that would not be the time to pump in the biggest amount of new operating spending in Budget history, as that party chose to do in Government. For that member to stand there and pretend that she has now found fiscal rectitude when she is sitting alongside colleagues—

SPEAKER: That’s enough. [Interruption] The Hon Barbara Edmonds—and everyone else will listen.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Mr Speaker, it doesn’t faze me. Is she confident that her Budget will not exacerbate inflation or unemployment?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes.

Question No. 5—Education

5. to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made on improving education outcomes for New Zealand children?

I recently announced $67 million of investment from Budget 2024 for structured literacy, which will transform the way New Zealand children learn to read—improving student achievement, closing the equity gap, and setting up Kiwi kids for success. This money will also ensure that schools and teachers have the resources and support they need to teach Kiwi kids to read, whether it be in English or in te reo Māori. Reading is fundamental to help children to succeed in education and in life. If we improve our education outcomes, then we build a brighter future for our kids, for our society as a whole, and a stronger economy.

Greg Fleming: What will her recent announcements mean for students?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: We are unashamedly investing in the front line of education to improve outcomes for students. Along with that $67 million to improve student achievement, we also have invested $53 million to increase the supply of our teachers. The teachers are our greatest asset in education, and we need to invest in recruitment, training, and retraining. We have introduced an hour a day of reading, writing, and maths; we are implementing a knowledge-rich curriculum; we’ve removed the distraction of cell phones for the whole of school day; we’ve set an ambitious target around attendance and achievement. Every single one of these announcements is focused on raising achievement and closing the equity gap so that our tamariki can live the lives that they want.

Greg Fleming: What reports has she seen that are supporting her work programme announcements?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Last week, the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research published a report which showed that graduate primary school teachers have been let down by the system and lack basic qualifications in science and mathematics. It found a quarter of teachers failed to meet the required benchmark to pass NCEA level 1 maths and more than half failed to pass level 1 science—under the previous Government’s watch. Many chose not to pursue maths and science beyond level 1, but those who do are more likely to fail than pass. The correlation between these statistics and outcomes for our students are deeply concerning, because only 42 percent of year 8 students are at curriculum for maths, and only 20 percent are at curriculum for science. There is a moral imperative to break this cycle. This is why I have announced that we are strengthening the curriculum, investing in teacher professional development, and taking the first steps to improve teacher training.

Greg Fleming: How will savings be reinvested in education?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Around $429 million in savings will be realised in education over the next four years, and every single dollar of these savings will be reinvested into the front line. Some of these reinvestments have already been announced, such as the increased funding for period products so students don’t miss out at school. We’ve also ensured that school lunches will continue while delivering a more efficient programme and extending it to 10,000 Kiwi kids in early childhood. The savings we have made will be dwarfed by the significant investments that we will deliver in Budget 2024 tomorrow. We are a Government that is focused on delivering for Kiwi kids, and I look forward to the announcements from the Minister of Finance tomorrow.

Question No. 6—Housing

6. to the Minister of Housing: On what date, if any, did he seek Cabinet committee approval for the structure and makeup of the review into Kāinga Ora?

On Wednesday, 13 December 2023, the Cabinet 100-Day Plan Committee considered the paper establishing the Kāinga Ora (KO) review. The committee agreed to establish an independent review of Kāinga Ora, under section 132 of the Crown Entities Act 2004, conducted by three independent members appointed by the responsible Ministers—the Minister of Finance and me, the Minister of Housing. The committee also noted the proposed terms of reference of that review and authorised responsible Ministers to consult with Kāinga Ora on them. This decision was confirmed by Cabinet on Monday, 18 December 2023 and announced on the same day.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: When he sought Cabinet committee approval to have the power to appoint the reviewers of Kāinga Ora, did he inform the committee that he had already agreed to appoint Sir Bill English on 29 November 2023?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, it was discussed that Sir Bill English would be involved in the review.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. I seek leave to table a response to an Official Information Act request received on 23 May 2023, which is not publicly available, containing text messages exchanged between the housing Minister and Sir Bill English between 29 November 2023 and 22 April 2024.

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

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

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why, then, was this information not included in the Cabinet paper, knowing it would eventually be proactively released, given that the text message exchange where he agreed to appoint Sir Bill English would not be proactively released?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I think the member is dreaming up a conspiracy here that doesn’t exist. It is a matter of public record. I released this Official Information Act request with texts between myself and Sir Bill because, well, there’s no conspiracy here. As I’ve said publicly, Ministers engage in discussions around people who might do reviews or expert advisory groups, with people who might do those, all the time. It’s not like Cabinet makes a decision to appoint people to do reviews and then they find out that they’ve been appointed after the appointment happens, without any discussion around it. That’s not how it works. There is a range of discussions and involvement and engagement around that. I talked to Sir Bill English about being involved in the Kāinga Ora review. Ministers then took a paper to Cabinet seeking authority to conduct a review—again, no surprise there, because the National Party campaigned on that in the 2023 election. The Cabinet committee authorised that. It was confirmed by Cabinet, and then, pursuant to the Crown Entities Act, Ministers then appointed the reviewers. That’s literally all there is to it. The member is dreaming up a conspiracy that doesn’t exist.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Mr Speaker, instead of accusing members of dreaming up conspiracies, it would be best for the order of the House if Ministers actually addressed the question. The question itself was actually pretty straightforward—a simple question as to why a piece of information that the Minister has said to the House that they discussed was not included in the Cabinet paper that was proposing the thing they were discussing. That’s straightforward.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’m happy to answer the question.

SPEAKER: Except that he did answer that discussions had been taking place among Ministers. You want to make a point of order?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I’m happy to answer the question. Not every Cabinet paper includes every piece of information. The relevant decision that the Cabinet committee sought—subsequently confirmed by Cabinet—was for responsible Ministers to make appointments. That authority was granted. Responsible Ministers then went on to make the appointments, and that is literally all there is to it.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Did he inform Cabinet that he had advised Sir Bill English the review should have “no involvement from KO”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We don’t talk about what happens in Cabinet, but in relation to that specific issue that the member raises, my comment to Sir Bill was about the fact that the review was intended to be independent of Kāinga Ora—as in it wouldn’t be Kāinga Ora reviewing itself; it would be a genuinely independent review done by independent reviewers. Clearly, I expected the review to engage with Kāinga Ora, which they did, as I’ve said on multiple occasions.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ve got a bit of an issue here, where, yesterday, I asked the Minister quite clearly if at any point he advised Sir Bill English that there’d be no involvement of Kāinga Ora. The Minister answered no. Now, in response to the question I’ve just asked, he’s gone on to explain, yes, he did say that but this is what he meant. If a Minister has answered a question incorrectly, they are required to correct that at the first possible opportunity, and that would have been before question time, not as part of an answer to a supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Yeah, look, there are around about 50-odd questions a day. I can’t remember the answers to all of them, but I will make some effort to find out what the difference between the two positions is. But can I also say that if the member feels there is an issue, then he has another course of action that he can take in that regard?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why did he inform Cabinet that the board of Kāinga Ora was “broadly comfortable with the review recommendations” when the board sent the review panel a 14-page letter outlining the factual inaccuracies they identified in the report?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Because that was based on the advice that I received from officials. It is perhaps unsurprising that a board that has been the subject of a damning independent review does not agree with those findings.

Hon Nicola Willis: Did he consider whether there was any precedent for the Government appointing former senior Ministers to important public sector roles?

SPEAKER: Yeah, I think we’ll just let that one go through to the keeper. Thanks very much.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, Mr Speaker, that’s an important question.

SPEAKER: No. Well, it might well be for you to answer, but it’s not an important question for the House, because it doesn’t deal with the actions of the current Government. So have you got another supplementary?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Point of order. Mr Speaker, the line of questioning yesterday and today and other public commentary, including by the Leader of the Opposition, is around the appointment of a former Prime Minister to an independent review into a Government agency. Clearly it is relevant, therefore, to consider past actions of other Governments as a precedent basis regarding senior Ministers.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: No, he’s got no responsibility for them.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it is a matter of responsibility, because I follow past precedent and practice by past Governments. It’s well within order, Mr Speaker, to be asked about those precedents.

SPEAKER: Well, it would be asking you for an opinion, and that would be kind of interesting but not within the ambit of your ministerial responsibility.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that the former chair of Kāinga Ora was a former Labour Party senior Minister?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, indeed, I can. Vui Mark Gosche was a Cabinet Minister under the Helen Clark Government, and I also have a range of other senior Ministers who’ve been appointed to public roles: Steve Maharey; Michael Cullen; Ruth Dyson; I’m not sure we’d call Louisa Wall particularly senior, but she was appointed the Pacific gender equality ambassador by Nanaia Mahuta; Annette King; Trevor Mallard; Phil Goff. The list goes on.

SPEAKER: Good. I think everyone got the message there.

Question No. 7—Justice

7. to the Minister of Justice: What recent statistics has he seen on victims of crime?

Based on the latest Police data, over the past five years, violent crime has increased by 33 percent, ram raids by 290 percent, robberies by 62 percent, and the number of victims of retail crime has increased 110 percent. New Zealanders deserve better. That’s why the Government is committed to restoring real consequences for crime. We’ve replaced the previous Government’s goal to reduce the prison population by 30 percent, irrespective of what the level of crime is in the community, with clear and measurable targets to reduce—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The statement that the Minister has just made in his answer is factually incorrect. He has no ministerial responsibility for the previous Government’s targets. But if he is going to refer to them, then he needs to refer to them accurately.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, it was very clear that it was a—

SPEAKER: Just wait—just calm. The Hon Paul Goldsmith.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I reject his assertion and his point of order. It was clearly stated as a goal of the previous Government to reduce—

SPEAKER: That’s good. Well, I’m not adjudicating an argument between the two of you. If there’s factually incorrect material being presented to the House, there will be a remedy for those to take it up. So we’ll take—

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Can I finish my answer.

SPEAKER: Maybe you should start again and make it brief, because I was sort of losing it a bit.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I’d hate for the—the only point I wanted to add is it’s also why we’re progressing legislation to give the police additional tools to tackle gangs.

James Meager: What other statistics on victims of crime has he seen?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: On Monday, the Ministry of Justice released their latest five-year analysis of the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey. This analysis identified victims of crime who are deemed to be highly victimised, experiencing four or more cases of crime in the past 12 months. It identified that of the 4 percent of New Zealanders who are highly victimised, Māori are disproportionately represented, comprising 30 percent of that group. This is twice the rate of the rest of the population. That’s why Māori are more likely to benefit from the measures of our Government to reduce crime.

James Meager: What are the key insights from that five-year analysis of the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The analysis shows that a small group of New Zealanders are experiencing the most crime: 137,000 people are considered to be highly victimised every year. You’re even more likely to be highly victimised if somebody is young, a woman, and Māori. That is why we’re focusing on reducing the number of victims of crime to improve the safety of all New Zealanders. The restoration of the three-strikes regime will keep our worst repeat offenders off the streets for longer. Our decision to offer rehabilitation services to many prisoners on remand will help reduce reoffending.

James Meager: And what other actions is the Government taking to reduce the number of victims of crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, first, we’re restoring real consequences for crime. We’ve already introduced legislation to give police extra tools to deal with gangs, we’ve taken the first steps to ensure that prisoners on remand can get rehabilitation programmes, and we’re progressing well with strengthening the sentencing regime in New Zealand. Serious repeat youth offenders will face tougher consequences through the young serious offender category and military academies. Ministers Mitchell, McKee, Chhour, and others are working hard in their respective portfolios, and there is plenty more yet to come.

Question No. 8—Māori Development

8. to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he stand by his statement that the Treaty “is fundamental to our nation”?

Talofa lava. Yes, the Treaty is fundamental to our nation. It is embedded in our constitutional fabric, past, present, and future. Before I resume my seat, my acknowledgment to our Matua Willie Jackson for returning from the Oxford debate successfully. I understand your colleagues have been very happy in your absence.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you very much for that! Kia ora. How can the Minister stand by his statement; sorry, sorry—sorry, Mr Speaker. He rattled me a little bit with that compliment—threw me a little bit. I’ll just come to that question again. What priority, if any, will the Minister’s statement reflect the aspirations of Māori in Budget 2024?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Talofa lava. We are prioritising the 35,000 extra Māori who ended up on a benefit over the last six years, and the 60 percent of Māori tamariki who didn’t make it to school as a result of the Labour education approach, and also the 1,700 Māori households who are currently living in emergency housing up and down the country in places like Fenton Steet, Rotorua, and Ulster Steet, Hamilton West, and making sure that we address the needs of Māori and all New Zealanders.

Hon Willie Jackson: How can he stand by his statement when all that Māori see are cuts to Māori initiatives and the continued undermining of the Treaty of Waitangi?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Talofa lava. One more sleep to go, heigh-ho-hippy-ho, and we hope to see tax relief for many Māori and all New Zealanders.

Hon Willie Jackson: What best reflects the Government’s position in relation to the Treaty and Māori: Winston Peters, who has compared Māori policy akin to Nazi Germany; David Seymour, who believes the Treaty partnership is a misinterpretation—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. If you’re going to make statements in the question, then you have to ensure you can validate them with proof. No such comment was ever made in the way Mr Jackson just outlined.

I made strong recommendations to the Business Committee on Tuesday that questions in the House that raise—basically that contain—allegations against others should be avoided for the order in the House. Do you want to speak to the point of order?

Hon Willie Jackson: Yes, I’ll speak to the point of order, Mr Speaker. So, Mr Peters—I was talking about a reference he made to Nazi Germany at his own conference. I just want to apologise to the Minister, I want to clarify to the House that I don’t want to misrepresent him, but it was both Nazi Germany and the Ku Klux Klan that the Minister compared the policy with—this is from his own conference.

That’s good; well, you can table it if you want to. I’m sure it’s widely read and expected. The other point I’d make is that Minister Potaka has no responsibility for anything that was said by the leader of the New Zealand First Party. So think about that. The Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Not only did Willie Jackson say something that wasn’t true in his first question, he’s now compounded it when he knows full well that that speech says it is Labour Party policy that resembles the Ku Klux Klan.

Hon Willie Jackson: Well, Mr Speaker, I can only—

SPEAKER: What are you doing here? Are you speaking to that, or are you going to—

Hon Willie Jackson: I’m speaking to that, Mr Speaker, because I stand by—

SPEAKER: Hang on, there’s no way I’m going to give a ruling here that says that you can go ahead with those sorts of accusations. Think about your words. You’re obviously very good at this debating stuff, so think about the way you put your question together.

Hon Willie Jackson: Well, Mr Speaker, I wanted to—with respect—get a position from the Minister in terms of what basically sums up the Government’s Māori and Treaty policy, and that’s why I’m giving the examples of David Seymour, the Hon Winston Peters, and the last person I want to give as an example was the Prime Minister, whose view on Māori policy and Treaty policy is that Māori can only protest on the weekend, when it is convenient to him. So I would like to know from the Minister: what basically sums up the Government’s Māori and Treaty policy?

SPEAKER: Well, the problem is I’m sure he can’t answer that in a concise fashion that question time would allow, but I will ask him to perhaps make a brief statement.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Talofa lava. I’m very proud to be part of a party that started the historic Treaty settlements process over 30 years ago. I stand with my esteemed colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith, who has continued in the vein of Christopher Finlayson and Doug Graham. E mihi ana ki a tātou.

Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker, point of order. The question’s very clear. I can’t help it, Mr Speaker. I’m asking for the Government policy, and the Government and his view in terms of Winston Peters, David Seymour, and the Prime Minister, and he’s waffling on about Doug Graham.

SPEAKER: Well, I guess he’s just throwing out a bunch of names like you have. So I just think the question, with all due respect, is not that clear. I’ll give the member one more shot at the question.

Hon Member: Someone send aid to Oxford!

SPEAKER: Let him go.

Hon Willie Jackson: In terms of the Minister, I’ll ask the next question: is the Minister planning to attend the Hui Taumata this Friday in Hastings, and, if so, what will he be saying to all those concerned about his Government’s Māori policies?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. As we all know, tomorrow is the Budget, and there are various responsibilities that go with being a Minister of this Government attending to Budget matters. I look forward to hearing and potentially seeing the outcomes of the hui that will be convened at Ōmahu, the home of various hapū of mine—Ngāti Mahuika, Ngāti Honomōkai, and Ngāti Pakau. Kia ora tātou.

Hon Nicola Willis: Do Māori stand to gain from a Budget that delivers responsible economic management?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I look forward to hearing the Budget tomorrow. I wanted to acknowledge our manu pūtea, Minister Nicola Willis, for her absolutely professional and diligent approach to ensuring that Māori and all New Zealanders benefit from this Budget.

Supplementary question—[Interruption] We’ll just wait for a bit of quiet.

Rawiri Waititi: Does the Minister believe that Te Tiriti is fundamental to our nation?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. Yes, and I believe that Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi—is the basis for the kotahitanga that I have subscribed to for the course of my life.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he believe, and will he confidently put on record, that all the rangatira on behalf of their respective hapū, who signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Māori text ceded sovereignty to the British Crown, or did Māori maintain rangatiratanga?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. As we know, the Treaty of Waitangi—Te Tiriti o Waitangi—is a sacred covenant, a kawenata tapu, that was signed between various rangatira, iwi, and hapū, and representatives of the Crown.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order. Now, that question was really clear. I was asking whether he believed that all rangatira, on behalf of their respective hapū, who signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi, ceded sovereignty to the British Crown or maintained rangatiratanga.

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll give him a chance to say something again, but I would point out that he made it clear what he believes, which was the first part of the question.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. It is absolutely clear that Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi—provided that the Crown would actively protect the rangatiratanga of our people.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order. I’m perplexed by that answer, Mr Speaker, because—

Hon Member: It’s not an answer.

Rawiri Waititi: —it’s not an answer. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Wait a minute. Hold on.

Rawiri Waititi: It’s not an answer—

SPEAKER: Start again.

Rawiri Waititi: He’s made up—

SPEAKER: Start again. Points of order are heard in silence.

Rawiri Waititi: Sorry. Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m perplexed by that answer because it’s actually not an answer. He’s made up text that doesn’t even exist in Te Tiriti o Waitangi or even its principles or articles. So I wanted to just clarify that for the record.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you for doing that in your opinion. But he did answer the question, with the opening words, “I believe”, and that is what the intention of your question was and the words for your question were right at the start. And shake your head, but, in the end, words matter.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he believe that rangatiratanga can be achieved whilst being subjugated and simulated in this Westminster system?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. We live in an ever-evolving country, Aotearoa New Zealand. I believe that Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi—is a sacred covenant that’s been signed by representatives of iwi and hapū and the Crown.

Hon Shane Jones: Can the Minister confirm that this debate was settled by Sir Apirana Ngata in a seminal document reflecting his understanding a lot closer to the signatories of the Treaty of Waitangi, and the Treaty of Waitangi is an indivisible, bilingual, bicultural document incapable of being dismembered to suit the fads of the minor party of Parliament? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: That’s enough. [Interruption] That is absolutely enough.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. As you’re aware, I am a student of the same college that Tā Apirana Ngata attended, Te Aute College, and I subscribe to the learnings and the teachings of Tā Apirana through great subject matter writings, such as The Treaty of Waitangi and The Price of Citizenship.

Question No. 9—Resources

9. to the Minister for Resources: What announcements has he made on doubling the value of New Zealand’s mineral exports by 2035?

As the Minister for Resources—not of resources—I visited Blackball last week, the home of the Labour Party, to launch the Government’s growth strategy for the minerals sector, where I was not only greeted by a small but motley bunch of protesters but overwhelmed by the size of the crowd in the Blackball Hall, where there was standing room only. I shared that our strategy will actually double the mineral exports value and, with the right direction and settings, jobs will grow regional resilience and we’ll no longer rely on the Congo for our minerals.

Tanya Unkovich: What will the Government’s minerals strategy achieve?

Hon SHANE JONES: Firstly, we won’t continue the falsehood of importing minerals from countries that have abysmal environmental standards, abysmal child work safety practices—but, no, sir, this vision, which I’ve articulated on behalf of the Government, will boost not only regional productivity, resilience, and although it may be modest in size, in order to save the climate, we must mine our way to the future.

Tanya Unkovich: Why is the minerals sector critically important for responding to climate change?

Hon SHANE JONES: This strategy focused on climate minerals, otherwise known as green minerals, and as the International Energy Agency has articulated, the world, in order to reach net zero by 2050, will need six times more minerals for low-emissions technology. And I can assure you we will not hurt any endangered birds, in particular those called “Darleen”!

Tanya Unkovich: What feedback has he—

SPEAKER: Please just wait till I call you.

Tanya Unkovich: What feedback has he—

SPEAKER: Yeah, wait till I call you. OK, now you’re up.

Tanya Unkovich: What feedback has he received on the launch of the minerals strategy?

Hon SHANE JONES: Overwhelmingly positive. Indeed, that organ of the fourth estate, otherwise known as ZB radio, has raised the importance of the trade-off presented in this document: that in order to have more solar panels, to have the other accoutrements necessary for the climate change journey, we need minerals; we need mining. And perhaps it could not be better said than by the 80-year-old former miner Les Neilson: “I started my life in Blackball 80 years ago. To be at the meeting to hear Shane Jones, Parliament’s greatest orator, I don’t believe I’ll live to hear another speech like that again.”

SPEAKER: It would be nice to think that this House might not hear another speech like that again!

Hon Marama Davidson: Will he commit to no new coal mines on public conservation land; if not, why not?

Hon SHANE JONES: Of course, that depends on how that member defines “conservation land”, because stewardship land most certainly is not conservation land. That’s the first thing. The second thing is that we need to respect the property rights of investors who already have enterprises on conservation land, including the conservation department’s allocation to Rua Minerals for a new permit in the Coromandel bush last week.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does the Minister accept that the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook from 2021 states that the pathway for less than 1.5 degrees of warming needs “no new oil and gas fields approved for development” and “no new coal mines or mines extensions”, and, if not, why not?

Hon SHANE JONES: I am aware of those aspirations. They will be taken into account and given appropriate importance as we secure energy resilience in New Zealand, and as the member and the person sitting next to her ride their bikes, know that coal is keeping the lights on.

Question No. 10—Police

10. to the Minister of Police: What commentary has he seen on Police’s announcement of the National Gang Unit?

Overwhelmingly positive commentary. Some have said that it has the potential to make a significant impact. Stuff reported that with 42 percent of gang members linked to reported crimes as a suspect or offender and 18 of percent of serious crimes committed by gang members, it’s clear New Zealand has a gang problem. This Government is delivering new tools for police, like banning gang patches and insignia in public, which the unit will be able to use to disrupt and suppress gang activity. The feedback has been so positive that the Labour Party attempted to take credit for the announcement.

Mike Butterick: Does he agree with commentary that gangs will ignore police?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Absolutely not. New Zealand has a world-class police force, and I have full confidence that the men and women that go to work every day to keep Kiwis safe without fear or favour have the skills, training, capability, and, very soon, the tools to target, disrupt, and suppress the gangs and the misery that they cause in our communities.

Mike Butterick: Why does he have confidence that police can enforce the new tools the Government is giving them?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Over the last six months, police have already shown that they’re highly effective in prioritising public safety over gangs. The response to gang convoys has been outstanding. Law-abiding members of the public are having their rights protected over and above those of gang members. Police have also conducted 1,668 search warrants; 926 warrantless searches; entered 80,102 charges, warnings, and infringement notices; and seized 661 firearms.

Mike Butterick: Would he say that police in jurisdictions where gang patches are banned are just “wardrobe police”?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: That is a ridiculous statement. This is a piece of wardrobe that creates drive-by shootings and gang conflicts, and markets to and targets young men for gang recruitment, and to earn the right to wear one, you have to show that you have the propensity to commit violent crime. There is a trail of tears and victims sitting behind every one of those gang patches. This Government is banning that part of the wardrobe that is clearly designed to intimidate and inflicts misery and violence on communities.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How many individuals are recorded as gang members on the National Gang List as of February 2024, and does this represent an increase of 176 individuals since he took office?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I don’t have that exact number, but I can assure the member of this—that under the previous Government we saw an over 50 percent increase in gang members in this country. We saw a 33 percent increase in violent crime in this country, and this Government has come in, and we’ve been very clear about the fact that we are not going to tolerate that. And that is why you’re seeing the police being so effective over the last six months in starting to suppress gang members in this country.

Question No. 11—Economic Development

11. to the Minister for Economic Development: Talofa, Fofoga Fetalai, fa‘afetai tele. Does she agree with the Auditor-General that public sector organisations must have “clear policy, guidance, and procedures to manage the risks to procurement processes that can arise from actual, potential, and perceived conflicts of interest”?

Yes.

Glen Bennett: Does she have confidence that the Minister of Health appropriately managed the risks to perceived conflicts of interest in the awarding of recent mental health contracts?

Hon MELISSA LEE: I have no responsibility for the Minister of Health awarding the mental health contract. If the member is interested, he can write to the Minister or actually put the oral question to the correct Minister.

Glen Bennett: What steps will she take to ensure that her responsibility in procurement, when it comes to mental health contracts, follows the best practices of procurement processes?

Hon MELISSA LEE: What I can tell the member is that I, as Minister, am responsible for the procurement framework—which the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is actually responsible for. But in terms of the procurement for the mental health issue that he is actually talking about, it is part of our Budget 2024, where we commit to the mental health services for our young people. That is not a lesson or a lecture that I am prepared to take from that member or that party, who actually wasted $1.9 billion of taxpayer money for mental health and actually did not deliver very much.

Glen Bennett: What does she say in response to the submission on the Fast-track Approvals Bill by the Auditor-General that “Ministers of course have a broad discretion to make decisions, however that power comes, in my view, with an obligation to be transparent to the public about how and why they made those decisions, particularly where those decisions differ from official advice.”?

Hon MELISSA LEE: As I said earlier to that member, as Minister, I am responsible for the procurement framework; however, responsibility for each procurement sits with the portfolio Minister responsible. Having said that, the Fast-track Approvals Bill has joint Ministers responsible: the Minister for Infrastructure, the Minister of Transport, and the Minister for Regional Development. If that member is really interested, he will put that question to those Ministers.

Glen Bennett: Does the fact that there is a commitment in the coalition agreement on the management of conflicts of interest mean that normal procurement processes don’t apply?

Hon MELISSA LEE: The procurement framework is something that I am responsible for as Minister, and MBIE, as an entity, provides advice to Government agencies so that they can actually exercise their responsibility to make procurement responsible—so that they are putting in good practices. But individual Ministers—if there are conflicts of interest in terms of procurement, it will be managed through the normal Cabinet process and ministerial responsibilities.

SPEAKER: Right, that’s very good. That concludes oral questions.