Oral Questions

1. to the Prime Minister: Talofa e te Pīka. Does he agree with all his Government’s statements and actions?

Yes, and especially our commitment to support working families with the cost of living crisis through tax reduction. After 14 years, this is a Government that is finally delivering income tax relief to hard-working New Zealanders in the Budget. The last Government’s response to inflation was more spending, more taxes, and more debt. We’re getting wasteful spending under control so that we can rebuild the economy and get New Zealand back on track.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What did he mean when he stated on Waitangi Day 2024 that the obligations Te Tiriti imposes “on both sides will always be with us.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, I didn’t hear the question.

SPEAKER: Repeat the question if you don’t mind.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What did he mean when he stated on Waitangi Day 2024 that the obligations Te Tiriti imposes “on both sides will always be with us.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, just that—that it’s actually the founding document of New Zealand; we’ll continue to honour it.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How is removing references to Treaty principles from over 40 pieces of legislation meeting his Tiriti obligations?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think that question mischaracterises what we’re doing. What we’re asking for is, actually, making sure that when there are references to the Treaty in legislation, that it’s actually very specific to the application of that legislation.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How do policies such as the Fast-track Approvals Bill, the Treaty Principles Bill, the removal of section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act, the ministerial alienation of te reo Māori, and the disestablishment of Māori wards and the Māori Health Authority meet the Crown’s obligations to Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject the characterisation of that question. What I’d say to you is I could take each of those issues and say why we’re making the changes that we are. We don’t believe a Māori Health Authority actually delivers better health outcomes for Māori—period. We think there’s other ways to deal with that. We think we can do that through working and partnering with local iwi health organisations, as an example. So I just—you know, that’s our position, we’re very clear about it.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What actions will his Government be taking to uphold his obligations to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in response to Israel’s continued assault on civilians and children in Rafah, including the murder of over 50 people last night?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think you heard us declare in February—and we partnered with both Australia and Canada at the time—that we did not want to see Israel undertake military operations in Rafah, because it would have catastrophic implications and impact on people. Obviously, we are a country that upholds international law and we expect Israel to be compliant with the ICJ ruling.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it the Prime Minister’s view that MMP has delivered far greater representation of Māori in this Parliament than any other left-wing, woke idea or—dare I say it—ethnic preference idea?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m incredibly proud of the Māori representation we have in this Cabinet.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder, Mr Speaker, whether you could indicate what ministerial responsibility the Prime Minister has for previous election results.

SPEAKER: That’s very true—he has none. But he was asked if he would reflect upon a situation, and I think the question, when it says “all statements”, “all actions”, etc., allows that.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has she made about the Budget?

Yesterday, I joined the Prime Minister to outline further details of the Budget 2024 savings programme. In the same way that households have adjusted their budgets and their spending, as a Government we have had to do the same. Ministers have gone line by line through the funding they are responsible for to evaluate whether it represents the best use of precious taxpayer dollars. As I said yesterday, this line-by-line process has uncovered more than 240 individual saving initiatives for inclusion in Budget 2024.

Stuart Smith: What will the savings be used for?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Landlords. [Laughter]

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The savings will be used for two things—the members opposite laugh at the New Zealanders who are paying higher rates of tax than they have in 14 years, because it’s their view that they can always spend it better than New Zealanders can in their own families. But on this side of the House, we are making savings so that they can be both used to provide long overdue tax relief for hard-working New Zealanders and also be used to invest in Government priorities, including front-line services. On Thursday, members will see examples of careful reprioritisation in almost every area of Government, freeing up cash to go towards things—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: And all the children in Oranga Tamariki?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —like training additional teachers—well, if the member opposite wants to talk about children, let’s talk about the young people who will benefit from the Gumboot Friday mental health counselling session that her side of the House seems to oppose—and additional funding for surf lifesavers. We are making active choices to stop some areas of spending so that we can redeploy those funds to better uses.

Stuart Smith: Where have savings been made?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That will be announced in the Budget, and I can tell the member that the Government has already announced decisions to stop some lower-value spending. This includes finding $442 million in savings at Corrections so we can reinvest in our prisons and front-line corrections officers; finding $99 million from within the New Zealand Defence Force to reinvest in defence personnel and equipment; stopping work on the income insurance scheme, another name for a job tax; stopping work on so-called industry transformation plans; stopping work on Lake Onslow; repealing the Clean Car Discount; exiting the Crown’s contribution to Let’s Get Wellington Moving, otherwise known as “Let’s Slow Wellington Down”; and continuing the school lunch programme left unfunded by the outgoing Government, and delivering it in a way that saves taxpayers approximately $107 million a year.

Stuart Smith: What announcements has she made about the impact Budget 2024 will have on the job losses in the Public Service?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The increase over the past six years in the number of back-office Public Service roles was unaffordable and needed to be reined back. According to the most recent advice I have received, the Government’s baseline savings exercise will remove around 2,250 roles from Government departments, as well as closing around 1,150 vacancies. Further savings initiatives additional to our baseline exercise will remove a little over 500 roles. The number is subject to change and will remain so after Budget day. My heart goes out to anyone losing their job but Budget 2024 has required us to carefully reprioritise taxpayers’ dollars. The members on the opposite side of the House seem to think there’s a magic money tree at the end of the garden—or at least, if it’s not at the end of the garden, that magic money tree is New Zealand taxpayers whose pockets they never give up on fleecing. But we, on this side of the House, have reprioritised funding to support more workers on the front line, including nurses, doctors, police, teachers, and corrections officers. The list goes on, and I’ll have more to say on Thursday.

Hon David Seymour: Will the Government stop trying to save New Zealanders money after this Thursday’s Budget, or will it continue looking for ways to find efficiencies and do more with less for the benefit of hard-working Kiwis every day from the Budget onwards?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: What an excellent question from the Minister, because this is the new normal. We are a Government that every day, every week, every Budget will strive to make the most impact out of every taxpayer dollar. That’s what New Zealanders do in their own household budgets, that’s what small businesses do in their own businesses, and that’s what a good Government should do too.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. to the Prime Minister: Talofa lava. Does he agree with the then Leader of the Opposition, Christopher Luxon, who stated on 19 September 2023, regarding the National Party’s proposed tax cuts, that “for an average household income family with young kids, that would mean $250 a fortnight”?

In the context that that statement was made, yes, and I can confirm that this Government will be delivering tax relief in this year’s Budget, supporting Kiwis with the cost of living, with more detail to come on Thursday. And like him—though I don’t agree with Labour’s tax policy at the election; he’s already flip-flopped on capital gains tax, and my bet is he’s going to flip-flop on GST too.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How many families will benefit from $250 a fortnight in tax cuts as a result of this year’s Budget?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As your former finance Minister used to say, “Two more sleeps to go.”

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How many extra dollars per week will a minimum-wage worker keep, thanks to his Government’s tax cuts?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, you’ll have to wait till Thursday, but what I can say to that member is that this is a Government that believes, after 14 years, that working New Zealanders, low and middle income workers, the same people the Labour Party and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions used to care about, actually need support. And I’d just encourage that member and his party and say, vote for the tax relief that we’re going to be delivering on Thursday evening.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Can he confirm that according to the National Party’s own tax calculator, which has mysteriously been removed, minimum-wage workers can expect an additional $2 a week?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, the member will have to wait until Thursday, but what I appreciate is the question about the tax calculator, because I do want to say to the few people that are watching this broadcast today, get on board, go check out the official tax calculator on Thursday, and see how much benefit you’re going to get.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How many extra dollars per week will a typical property investor keep, thanks to the Government’s tax cuts?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, that’ll be dependent upon their individual circumstances, but what’s great is that we have restored interest deductibility, we’ve reduced the brightline test, and we’re balancing laws between tenants and landlords so we get a greater supply of rental properties in the housing market.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Can he confirm that a typical property investor can expect to keep an additional $288 per week per property, or 144 times what a minimum-wage worker can expect to keep?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I can confirm is that this is a Government that is going to solve the housing crisis, unlike his Government that had six years to do it and didn’t deliver. We’re here to deliver. We want an increase in supply in new houses being built, an increase in supply in rental properties, and an increase in supply in social housing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he guarantee—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on. Wait on. Wait. OK.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he guarantee that this year’s Budget will not lead the Reserve Bank to hike up interest rates again, leaving families worse off; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, look, I really appreciate the member’s interest in tax relief. It’s the most animated I’ve seen him discussing it. He had six years to deal with it. He didn’t touch it at all. And I’m just thinking of all those low and middle income workers out there that are working incredibly hard and still can’t get ahead because of the economic vandalism and mismanagement that his Government created. And help is on the way on Thursday.

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

SPEAKER: Point of order—I think I can anticipate—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Maybe I could just repeat it.

SPEAKER: Beg your pardon?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Maybe I could just repeat it.

SPEAKER: Well, I don’t think you need to repeat the question, but I think the answer could be further elucidated.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Very good.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: No, the Prime Minister’s going to—

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Can he repeat—sorry, I missed—

SPEAKER: OK. Repeat the question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he guarantee that this year’s Budget will not lead to the Reserve Bank hiking interest rates again, leaving families worse off; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I can say to him is our Budget is designed to lower Government spending, to lower inflation so we lower interest rates, get the economy growing, and we actually keep people in employment. The tragic reality of the previous administration was Government spending went up 84 percent, inflation hit an all-time high, interest rates hit an all-time high, the economy’s in recession, and rising unemployment. The Reserve Bank has an independent—we have an independent policy with the Reserve Bank.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Prime Minister assure the country that despite the economic crisis we inherited and despite the targeted expenditure and changes we’ve made, we, nevertheless, are looking forward to a period where New Zealand will have more money in the economy than ever before but in the right places?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely. And I also appreciate the opportunity to help the member understand economics, which is when you increase spending, you increase domestic inflation; that lifts interest rates, that slows the economy down, and that raises unemployment. That’s what we’re trying to deal with. The root cause of the problem: inflation. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I know that a few days before a Budget, the House is a little more animated than usual, but it’s been particularly animated today. I’d just suggest members keep it as calm as reasonably possible.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

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

Yes, in the context they were given.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister believe that more coalmining and oil and gas drilling is consistent with a livable planet or meeting our climate goals, as he has said that he is committed to?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I’d just say to that member is I would encourage her to read an excellent speech given by the Minister for Resources, Shane Jones, in the last week. It’s an actually thoughtful speech and it talks about the role that mining will play in New Zealand in helping us make that transition. Here’s the deal: every electric vehicle (EV), every smartphone, every solar panel, every wind farm needs minerals. We can’t just make them out of thin air.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is he aware that that very speech he’s referencing of the Hon Shane Jones where he repeated the International Energy Agency’s assessment that the world needs six times more rare minerals for green transition is premised on a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels and an end to coalmining?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, what I’d say to you is that it’s a very thoughtful speech and there’s no way we can deliver our transition to a clean economy without minerals.

Chlöe Swarbrick: If he disagrees with the International Energy Agency and the independent Climate Change Commission and the world’s top scientists that there is no future in fossil fuels or coalmining, from who is he actually getting his advice?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, look, I think the member would understand that actually mining is very important for helping us actually adopt EVs, to use smartphones, to adopt solar panels, and to make sure we get wind farms. We need minerals for that process and that transition.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister have any advice for people who say they are opposed to mining but live a luxuriant lifestyle thanks to the benefit of it every single day of their life?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just encourage all leaders of political parties here in this House to support the oil and gas ban reversal and also support the fast-track legislation that’s going through the House.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree with Standard & Poor’s that “unabated mines face the risk of becoming stranded assets as the global economy works towards decarbonisation” and his idea of “a modern, reliable infrastructure in New Zealand”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I certainly agree with the last part of that question, which is I do want to see a modern, reliable infrastructure emerge here in New Zealand. That’s why, again, I keep saying to the member that I encourage her and her party to support our fast-track legislation.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister think that sacrificing the habitat of the great spotted kiwi at the altar of coalmines is an accurate representation of his Government’s economic and environmental policies?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I reject the premise of that question, but what I’d just say to that member is, look, here’s the deal: we need minerals—we need critical minerals—in order to make the transition to a clean future. That’s all that the Minister was putting out on the table in an excellent speech last week. I encourage all members to read it.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware that the ability to hold up colour laser-printed images all day, every day, in Parliament is reliant on a vast array of materials, from printer toner to the metal in the printer to the fibre-optic cables that transmitted the signal—you name it, it all comes from mining—and would the words “hypocritical actions” come to the Prime Minister’s mind?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I want to thank the Minister for his question and just say the irony was not lost on me.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on. Wait on. Just listen. I know it’s exciting—48 hours to go—but just hold it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister aware, in terms of the setting of future policy, that the latest records show that the Green MPs have the highest aviation expenditure record of every party in Parliament?

SPEAKER: No—no responsibility. No responsibility for that. [Interruption] When you’re ready—question No. 5 in the name of Rima Nakhle.

Question No. 5—Housing

5. to the Minister of Housing: What announcements has he made regarding social housing places?

Last week, I was proud to announce that Budget 2024 allocates $140 million to funding 1,500 new social homes. This investment underlines the Government’s commitment to housing New Zealanders in need in a fiscally sustainable way. We will be funding these places to community housing providers. They do an outstanding job housing people in need, currently providing over 13,000 social houses around New Zealand, and they have the capability, expertise, and desire to grow further. We’re committed to growing the social housing sector.

Rima Nakhle: When will he prioritise these new social housing places?

Shanan Halbert: 10 years’ time.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, in the next two years—you should listen up, mate; I answered that last week. Currently, social housing is procured from community housing providers on a project by project basis. What we have said is that around 500 new homes of the 1,500 will be allocated quickly, using the existing pipeline of community housing provider opportunities, with three objectives in mind: firstly, value for money from Government investment; secondly, contributing towards our target of getting people out of emergency housing motels; and a balanced approach between achievability and building capability in historically underserved regions. In short, this means we will be prioritising social housing places where it will make the biggest difference and get people out of motels.

Rima Nakhle: What about the rest of the 1,500 new places?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The balance of the 1,500 places, which will be about a thousand, will likely be allocated using an active-purchaser approach, which officials will be developing throughout the rest of 2024. This is a concept developed in the independent review of Kāinga Ora, and it refers to the Government developing a much more sophisticated understanding of current and future housing needs at a national, regional, and cohort level; taking a social-investment approach to improving housing outcome; and, potentially, outcome-based contracts. Subject to ministerial agreement, officials will be looking at developing longer-term strategic partnerships with some community housing providers to achieve specific social and housing outcomes, rather than looking at single proposals one by one.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. to the Minister of Finance: Malo le soifua manuia, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by her statement, “These savings and revenue initiatives are the same as those in the National Party’s tax plan, with some adjustments to reflect coalition agreements”?

I stand by the full statement I made in question time last Tuesday, which was, “Tax relief in the Budget will be fully funded through savings and revenue initiatives. These savings and revenue initiatives are the same as those in the National Party’s tax plan, with some adjustments to reflect coalition agreements. There will also be other savings in the Budget [and] these savings will be directed towards Government priorities, including front-line public services.”

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Where in the coalition agreement does it say that the international visitor levy will increase?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It doesn’t.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Where in the coalition agreement does it say that she will introduce or consider a tax on utes as outlined in advice received by the Minister of Revenue?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That’s not being considered. Now, I can see that the member is very interested in the funding of our tax plan. So what I want to announce to the House is that those interested in that can look forward to the Budget matters document, which will be released on Thursday. I can advise the member that—I think it’s page 3 or 4 of that document—there will be an itemised outline of the savings and revenue measures being used to support our fully funded tax package that’s going to put cash back in the pockets of hard-working Kiwis.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she commit to funding the 13 new cancer treatments promised in her fiscal plan; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I have told that member a few times over the last few weeks that she will have to await Budget day to find the full set of commitments that we are progressing. There’s two comments that I would make. The first is we are a Government that was left with a massive hole where funding for the Pharmac budget should have been—they left massive fiscal cliffs so that we have already announced our commitment to a $1.8 billion boost for Pharmac. The second thing I would say is that across the coalition agreements that the National, New Zealand First, and ACT parties have formed, there are a number of commitments and not all of them will be delivered in our first Budget.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will the Minister be hosting a social services budget lock-up this year; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Has she taken down the tax calculator because she knows New Zealanders will not receive the $250 per fortnight in tax cuts that they had promised?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. There will be an official Government tax calculator. It will be hosted on the Treasury website, it will be available from 2 p.m. on Thursday, and you should go and check it out.

Question—[Interruption] Just wait for a minute. When are you ready? [Interruption] Do you want to take the conversation outside? [Interruption] All right, so we’ll just try for a bit of quiet and have question No. 7 from Laura Trask.

Question No. 7—Education

7. to the Associate Minister of Education: What progress has he made in making student attendance data more available?

On 7 May, I announced a new online data dashboard which makes daily attendance data available to the public and parents in a more timely way. The interactive dashboard will be updated once a week to show a national average and also regional breakdowns of how many students attended school each and every day. [Turns laptop toward members of the House]

SPEAKER: I can’t see that from here.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Mr Speaker, I’m sure that you should have gone to Specsavers.

Laura Trask: How will publishing attendance data help improve school attendance?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, it is critical that we create a sense of national focus on what is perhaps one of our biggest long-term problems in New Zealand—not enough students attending school. Publishing the data each week for daily attendance creates that focus but also allows us to better understand the data. So far this term, we’ve seen that there is a real problem with fewer students attending each Friday. We’ve also seen a gradual decline in attendance over the last four weeks, which we might attribute to the winter season where more and more people have been calling in sick. Understanding this kind of data, while not currently encouraging, will allow us to take a more proactive approach to increasing attendance. I’d also like to point out that in the last week to Friday 24, 90.8 percent of schools reported their data voluntarily, and this is a fabulous development. It started off closer to 85 percent. We’re now at nearly 91 percent of schools voluntarily reporting their data. We will aim for 100 percent when it becomes mandatory next year. But we are finally being honest about the problem, getting the data required to solve it proactively so that we can get students back to school, which is far more than the previous Government did, where Jan Tinetti was—

SPEAKER: That’s enough, thank you. If you want more questions, that’s enough.

Laura Trask: What is the daily attendance rate that schools should aspire to?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: This Government has set a goal that by 2030, 80 percent of students will be attending school at least 90 percent of the time. That compares with term 4 last year, when only 46 percent reached that target, and term 1 this year, where the figure was closer to 53. To get to 80 is going to be an enormous effort and that’s why it is paced out over the coming six years. However, the question was in relation to daily attendance rate. When you have 80 percent of students attending 90 percent of the time, you actually require a daily rate of approximately 94 percent. I’ll also just correct what I said earlier; I was relaying term 3 and 4 last year, not term 4 last year and term 1 this year in the earlier part of my answer.

SPEAKER: I’ll just remind the Minister that this is question time for relatively concise answers, not long dissertations that might be more in the nature of a general debate speech. Laura Trask. No more? Oh, OK, that makes it better.

Question No. 8—Housing

8. to the Minister of Housing: Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. Does he stand by his statement that the review into Kāinga Ora was “thorough”?

Yes.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: How is it thorough when the organisation under review has stated, “There was relatively limited engagement with our organisation, leading to some review conclusions appearing to be based on analysis informed by anecdotes rather than independently considering the performance of the organisation.”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, that, unsurprisingly, is Kāinga Ora’s perspective. I prefer the findings of the independent review.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: How is it thorough—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait for quiet. OK.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: How is it thorough when he in paragraph 56 of the relevant Cabinet paper omitted that there were serious and credible concerns raised in Kāinga Ora’s response, instead stating, “the Board is broadly comfortable with the review recommendations”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Because, unsurprisingly, I didn’t agree with Kāinga Ora’s perspective on the review.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: When did he approach Sir Bill English to chair the review into Kāinga Ora?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Sir Bill and I talked soon after the election about whether or not he could help out in reviewing Kāinga Ora. Ultimately, that is what happened, alongside two other very credible and expert reviewers.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Did he advise Sir Bill English not to involve Kāinga Ora in the review?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, and they were involved in the review. He met with Kāinga Ora alongside community housing providers, a range of people in the social sector, developers, and builders across a range of organisations in the social sector.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: How can he be confident this was a credible report when it ignored serious and credible concerns raised by Kāinga Ora, the details of which were omitted in the Cabinet paper, and he instructed the review not to involve Kāinga Ora?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, there are a number of factual inaccuracies there. Firstly, I didn’t ask the reviewers not to involve Kāinga Ora—you should have listened to my last answer. The reviewers did talk to Kāinga Ora. And in relation to the first part of his question, the concerns that the member relays as apparently or purportedly credible and serious are not credible and serious. I appreciate that the member wishes to defend the record of Kāinga Ora under the last Government; this Government has a different attitude to that, and the public can see for itself the financial disaster that is that organisation.

Hon Nicola Willis: Would it be fair to say that Kāinga Ora’s perception of itself and its unblemished excellence is somewhat different from the perception that communities have of Kāinga Ora’s approach to stakeholder engagement, is somewhat different from the approach harassed tenants have of the way Kāinga Ora deals with those matters, is somewhat different from the perception that those in the building and construction industry have from Kāinga Ora’s gold-plated approach to development, and is it in fact the case that the only people defending Kāinga Ora are the Labour Party?

SPEAKER: The Minister may answer only one of those questions, but not the last one.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, one of the great tragedies of the last few years is that the social—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: This Government!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We’ve been in office for six months; you really want to talk about your six years—good grief! One of the great tragedies of the last few years is that the social licence for social housing, which plays a very important role in housing vulnerable New Zealanders, has been eroded due to Kāinga Ora. Our Government seeks to rebuild the social licence to house vulnerable people in communities and make sure they have a warm, dry home. That’s the focus of our Government.

SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Winston Peters. Just wait for the House to go quiet.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to why should the Māori people and the Māori language suffer the ignominy of a disastrous housing policy and a name given to it by someone else in this Parliament?

SPEAKER: Well, just—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If you want to make it clear—one more time—

SPEAKER: No, no. My point was I actually didn’t hear what you were saying. Those microphones don’t tend to come back this way.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’m very sorry. Could the Minister advise us as to why the Māori people, and, dare I say it, the esteem of the Māori language, have suffered from the ignominy of a disastrous housing policy such as Kāinga Ora, which has seen so many people without a home in a country they thought they could get a home in?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, sadly, the name Kāinga Ora has become synonymous up and down the country with poor housing outcomes and a poorly performing organisation. That is the tragedy and that’s my point around the erosion of social licence. This Government is committed to social housing for New Zealanders in a financially sustainable, fiscally responsible way, and in a way that partners with the community sector and people actually on the ground who need support and who are out there doing the mahi and doing such an important job for New Zealanders.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

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

Yes, and in the context they were given.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his statement that “we have well-established processes for managing ministerial conflicts of interest”, and, if so, how many times have those “well-established processes” been used during the development of the Fast-track Approvals Bill?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, we do. And as I said before, and as you’ve heard the Minister for Infrastructure say, the process is before select committee. If there’s any sensible builds and improvements that can be made to the legislation, we’ll happily take that on board. But we make no apologies for adapting something that David Parker brought in the previous Government to actually fast-track and get things done in this country. We’re going to build things.

Hon Marama Davidson: Was a process for managing perceived or real conflicts of interest used in relation to the previously undisclosed dinner Minister Jones had with coalmining executives, including those from Te Kuha coalmine project, and, if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’d just say to the member is that we’ve got a bill that’s through the select committee process right now. We’re taking feedback in the select committee process to see if it can be strengthened. If there’s anything that people think that we can improve, we’re happy to take that on board. But I make no apologies. We are going to stop the talking and we’re going to get things done in this country. New Zealanders are expecting us to deliver more infrastructure, more windfarms, more renewable energy. And I keep calling on that member and her party to support this legislation.

Hon Marama Davidson: Was a process for managing perceived or real conflicts of interest used for the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries’ dinners with fishing executives who may be looking to use the fast-track consenting process and who have previously donated to Minister Jones’ election campaigns, and, if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject the premise of the question. We have processes in place to manage conflicts. But, most importantly, we are going to get this fast-track legislation done because it matters to New Zealanders. It improves the economic productivity of this country, it improves social outcomes, and it improves environmental outcomes too.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will the Prime Minister commit to changing the Fast-track Approvals Bill so that the panel has ultimate decision-making powers to prevent any conflicts of interest in decision making, considering a Minister in his Cabinet was lobbied by the mining industry before the bill was even introduced?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, the member didn’t listen to my earlier answers to earlier questions which was that the Minister for Infrastructure has said that he is open to sensible changes to the legislation that can improve it. But, again, I make no apologies. We are going to get things done because we’re not going to spend the time like the last six years of a Labour-Greens Government that just talked a lot, a lot of bumper stickers, and didn’t get stuff done. New Zealanders want delivery; they want things to happen.

Hon Marama Davidson: What would constitute a conflict of interest under the Cabinet Manual if none of these instances from his Ministers warrant concerns from the Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, again, I just say to the member: we have policies, as you well know, through the Cabinet Office for managing conflicts, perceived or real. I would just encourage that member maybe to think and focus on managing her own personnel, not ours.

SPEAKER: Supplementary question—the Rt Hon Winston Peters. The House will hear the question in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did any of your Ministers get $350,000 in taxpayers’ charity money, fail to declare it, and when challenged, shouted by way of defence “That’s racism.”—did any of your Ministers commit that sin?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Question No. 10—Carl Bates. Just wait for a few minutes. [Interruption] OK, we’ll try now.

Question No. 10—Education

10. to the Minister of Education: What recent pre-Budget education announcements has she made?

Last week, I announced $53 million over the next four years to attract, train, and retain teachers—the greatest asset that we have in our education system and an essential part of our plan to lift student achievement. This investment will support an additional 1,500 teachers into the workforce and help to give our kids a world-leading education. Budget 2024 is unashamedly about the front line, and you don’t get more front line in education than the teachers who stand at the front of the classroom every day, shaping the lives of our young people.

Carl Bates: Why is investment in teacher training a priority for this Government?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Multiple recent reports indicate that the system is letting teachers down. Newly graduated teachers do not feel confident, supported, or prepared for the classroom. We’re also faced with a projected shortage of up to 680 secondary school teachers in the next three years. The Education Review Office (ERO) found that half of our graduating teachers felt unprepared for the classroom. This Government is listening. Lifting achievement means investing in our teachers and improving the delivery of initial teacher education and developing the workforce of the future, and that is a priority for this Government.

Carl Bates: What will this investment in the front line deliver?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: This funding includes 1,200 new on-site teacher-training places, a stipend for the trainees, contribution towards their tuition fees, and funding to support host schools. ERO recently reported that trainees who spend two or more days per week in schools were more prepared to enter the classroom upon graduation. On-site training provides an opportunity to spend more time in the classroom and to incentivise people with specialist skills and high-quality graduates to consider training as a teacher while receiving a stipend towards their cost of living and having their fees contributed to. We’re also investing in relocation grants for an additional 300 overseas teachers, supports for schools in early childhood education with teacher recruitment costs, and 670 scholarships and awards for teachers.

Carl Bates: What feedback has she seen about this announcement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ve received strong support from the education sector. Post Primary Teachers’ Association president, Chris Abercrombie, said, “In-class training is a really good option and it’s a really good step from the Government to be looking at addressing the supply issue.” One new teacher, Hugo Miller, said, “I would have loved [to have spent] more time in schools.”—during his in-class training—“I really took so much away from that and from the guidance of a mentor teacher or an associate teacher.”, and David Ferguson, the principal of Westlake Boys High School, said that their experience with on-site training was a real success. He also said, “We think by exposing trainees to more in-class practising, watching really good teachers teach, that’s a better way of preparing them than being at university full time.”

Question No. 11—Education

11. to the Minister of Education: Talofa, Mr Speaker. How many, if any, teachers will lose their jobs due to cuts to Reading Recovery?

I recently announced $67 million of investment into structured literacy approaches to ensure that Kiwi kids are learning to read using evidence-based approaches proven to lift achievement and close the equity gap. As a result of this, reading-recovery contracts due to expire at the end of this year will not be renewed as this Government commits to consistent use of best practice in our schools. Teaching staff who are employed under the ministry-allocated 271 full-time equivalent reading-recovery roles have already been offered the opportunity to retrain using structured approaches to literacy, and many have already taken up this offer. The ministry advise that, therefore, current reading-recovery teachers may not necessarily lose their jobs.

Hon Jan Tinetti: How many children will lose access to reading recovery as a result of cuts to the reading recovery programme and its teachers?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, good news: this Government is introducing a tier 2 and 3, which is small group and one-on-one interventions using structured literacy so all children at primary school who are falling behind in their reading will have access to proven methods of intervention consistent with classroom teaching and structured literacy intervention.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Is the Minister aware of the Government’s own report that found that children who partake in the reading recovery programme made double the normal progress expected; if so, why is she cutting the successful programme?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I will not continue to fund a programme that, at the core of its philosophy, believes in teaching children the habits of poor readers. That research that that member is quoting is taking a look at reading recovery compared to what they’re doing now, which is a little sprinkling of structured literacy. So what we know is when you do structured literacy, you get better results. So how about we just do structured literacy and see what happens, because we know the evidence backs that up.

Hon Jan Tinetti: What does she say, then, to Professor Janet Gaffney, who led the introduction of reading recovery at Illinois successfully, where structured literacy programmes were the programmes of the day, and said, “Because reading recovery teachers plan based on the child’s strengths, it doesn’t matter what classroom programme is happening, the individual nature of the remedial programme means that observation and assessment drive the teaching.”?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ll go back to my main point that I made in my last answer. At the heart of reading recovery, they believe in teaching children the habits of poor readers. The three-cueing system: look at the picture, guess the word. Those are the habits of poor readers. We know from all of the evidence from structured literacy in-class teaching that the need for remedial reading drops by up to two-thirds. So we know that structured literacy is the approach that’s going to work for most of our kids. I would also like to quote a very learned person, in fact a very learned teacher, who said that structured literacy was one of the best things that she had seen in her lifetime of teaching. And that person was Jan Tinetti. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: That’s enough.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Will she guarantee that any future remedial reading programme will be funded at the same amount as reading recovery and have the same, if not better, results than reading recovery?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Absolutely.

Katie Nimon: What has she heard from parents about the shift away from reading recovery interventions towards structured literacy?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: What a timely question. I was in the airport at Wellington yesterday heading down to see the Secondary Principals’ Association of New Zealand conference people, and I was approached by a mother whose young son, she told me, had dyslexia. In year 8, he was reading between a year 1 and year 2 level. With a structured literacy intervention, he gained that entire primary school—six years of reading—so that he was ready to start high school, using a structured literacy intervention. That is the result I want to see for all Kiwi kids who are falling behind in their reading—evidence-based structured literacy approaches that are proven to work.

Hon Jan Tinetti: What does she say to Paula, who is one of the very many reading recovery teachers who have contacted me and will be losing her job at the end of the year, who says, “Why would you take trained teachers away from those students who need them the most?”

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, my message to that woman is firstly, thank you so much for being a teacher. We value you. The ministry has already contacted all of those reading recovery teachers, offered them retraining in evidence-based structured literacy, and many of them are taking that up. So what I would say to that teacher is “Please take up the opportunity to retrain in structured literacy and be part of the tier 2 and tier 3 interventions using a structured literacy method.”

Hon Member: To the rescue.

Hon Chris Bishop: Do—ha, ha!

SPEAKER: Is that a question?

Hon Chris Bishop: Does the structured literacy method teach children, for example, to sound out and say the sentence “Shooting fish in a barrel.”?

SPEAKER: We’ll go to Dr Carlos Cheung.

Question No. 12—Mental Health

12. to the Minister for Mental Health: What comments has he seen regarding his recent announcement about Gumboot Friday?

Budget 2024 will provide $24 million over four years to contract the I Am Hope Foundation to provide young people aged between five to 25 years with free mental health counselling services through the Gumboot Friday initiative. This will enable Gumboot Friday to provide more than 15,000 young New Zealanders access to free mental health counselling services each year. We know that mental health issues are one of the biggest issues facing New Zealanders each year. This announcement will play a vital role in enabling young people with mild to moderate mental health needs to access counselling services earlier. So that’s why it was heartening to read so many supportive comments about this announcement.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What other comments has he seen?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: I’m advised MPs’ inboxes and social media accounts have been overwhelmed with positive feedback following this announcement. Comments I’ve read include Melanie from Thames, who commented, “Great. There are a lot that need it too. Get behind the initiatives that are already working.” Rachel from Wellington said, “This is fantastic news. This is a great investment in our young people.” Finally, Sandy commented, “This is a wonderful organisation, and much kudos to Mike King for hanging in there. Great to see my tax going to a worthy cause.”

Dr Carlos Cheung: Do any comments stand out for him?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Yes. One prominent New Zealander who was a self-described Labour supporter and donor said, “The issue here needs to be focused on the fact that every cent that has been given to Gumboot Friday will be going to consultations for young people at the earliest signs of potential mental health issues. This is the ambulance at the top of the cliff rather than at the bottom, and there is a huge need for that.”

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I take it by your silence that you’re ruling that it’s OK for Ministers to refer to someone’s donor status in an answer. Therefore, is it OK for the Opposition to question someone’s donor status in a question? Because if it’s acceptable for a Minister to refer to someone’s donor status in an answer, then it must be acceptable to ask that in a question.

SPEAKER: Well, I think there have been quite a few questions relating to donor status just recently. All I could say—

Hon Shane Jones: It’s envious!

SPEAKER: If you don’t mind—Mr Jones, if you don’t mind. No, the one in front! What he was doing was quoting from a text that had been sent to him. Now, that is reasonable. Whether it becomes reasonable in a question, of course, is quite a different matter—it must comply with the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. But this is not a particular Speaker’s ruling that I’d rely on for any future questions. Any other questions on this matter?

Dr Carlos Cheung: Why is the Government funding front-line mental health services for young people?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: A report by the Auditor-General earlier this year found that despite a $1.9 billion investment into mental health by the previous Government, young people in need of mental health support are waiting longer to access care. This new funding will enable at least 15,000 young people to access free mental health counselling services through the Gumboot Friday platform every year. This Government is committed to better mental health outcomes for our young people and to getting more money out of Wellington and into the front-line services like Gumboot Friday that are already delivering.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What reports has he seen regarding the return on investment for Gumboot Friday?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Gumboot Friday is a longstanding and proven organisation that addresses the needs of our communities on the ground. A 2023 ImpactLab assessment found that every $1 invested in I Am Hope results in a social return to New Zealand of $5.70. This Government has committed to improving mental health and addiction outcomes for New Zealanders and is investing in this through Budget 2024.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Did any other mental health charities have the opportunity to bid for the $24 million contract?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Two more sleeps to go.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That question concerned an announcement that the Government has already made, not something that the Government may or may not be talking about on Budget day.

SPEAKER: I think we’ll have the question asked again.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Did any other mental health charities have the opportunity to bid for the $24 million contract?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Two more sleeps to go.

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

SPEAKER: Give me a few seconds to come to it. I think the point is the question, when it was asked, was asked in the past tense about what happened at a particular time. It’s a reasonable question and it is not dependent on an answer on something that happens in in a couple of days’ time.

The commitment to Gumboot Friday was a coalition agreement.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Whakatōhea Claims Settlement Bill.