Oral Questions

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct a statement I made regarding low residual notices in question No. 6 on 9 May 2024.

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

Hon SIMEON BROWN: In response to Ms Woods’ second supplementary to oral question No. 6 on 9 May 2024, I showed and explained a graph that displayed the number of low residual customer advice notices issued by Transpower since 2012. The graph displayed data provided to me at the time by Transpower. I have since been made aware that the data did not reflect the full picture. Prior to 2019, low residual customer advice notices weren’t listed as a separate category. Prior to 2019, only warning and grid emergency notices were issued. Transpower has since reviewed the historical data to separate out the notices that relate to low residual situations. The trend remains clear. In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of low residual situations across the network. However, I apologise to the House for any confusion caused by the graph I presented in the House, and I am taking this first possible opportunity to correct the record.

Thank you.

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Yes, and especially our action to fix the legacy of misery and financial mismanagement left by the previous Government at Kāinga Ora (KO). Having loaded KO up with billions of dollars in debt and wasted time on broken policies like KiwiBuild, rents soared, social housing wait-lists exploded, and we have more children in motels on their watch. We’re taking action to fix Kāinga Ora, we’re holding unruly tenants to account, and we’re cutting red tape so that we can deliver much more housing.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is he aware Auckland Council have identified five lead indicators that his Government has direct control over, including the return of no-cause evictions, which are likely to increase homelessness in our largest city?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What we are determined to do is increase the supply of rental properties, and there is a range of actions that we’ve undertaken: restoring interest deductibility, removing the brightline test back to two years, and—importantly—getting the balance right in tenancy laws between landlords and tenants.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can he guarantee no one will be made homeless by his Government’s decision to reinstate no-cause evictions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I can guarantee is that we are working incredibly hard to make sure that we avoid homelessness in this country. Part of that process is making sure we increase the supply of rental properties so that people can actually access and rent a house. That is why we’re very committed to making sure we increase the supply of rental properties in New Zealand.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can he guarantee that no one will be made homeless by his Government’s directive on tenant behaviour that Auckland Council says means that they are “expecting Kāinga Ora evictions”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what is important is we are getting the balance right in our tenancy laws so that we encourage landlords to put more houses up and make them available to more tenants so we avoid homelessness.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister unwilling or unable to say that his Government’s policies will increase homelessness in this country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I am willing to say is that we have a housing crisis in New Zealand, and—unlike the Labour and the Green Government that did nothing about it, and outcomes got a lot worse—we are working each and every aspect to increase the supply of houses available, houses available to rent, and social housing supply, as well.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister proud of his decision to hand $2.9 billion in tax cuts to landlords on the one hand, but on the other hand, making decisions that will by all accounts increase homelessness in this country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I am very proud that our Government is actually going to tackle the housing crisis we have in this country and homelessness. I would love that member to come in and support our efforts, because what we’re doing, actually, by unwinding interest deductibility is we’re making a lot more houses available for renters. We’re putting downward pressure on rents, and I’d encourage the member to join us and pass that legislation.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: What announcements has she made about the operating allowance for Budget 2024?

I said in the Budget Policy Statement that the operating allowance for Budget 2024 will be less than $3.5 billion—$3.5 billion, members may recall, was the operating allowance for Budget 2024 set by the previous Government. I will announce the actual number on Budget day, but I can confirm today to the House that it will be under $3.5 billion.

Miles Anderson: What does the operating allowance cover?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The operating allowance is the amount available in the Budget for discretionary spending and revenue initiatives. Importantly, allowances are a net concept. They include savings as well as spending. The operating allowance in Budget 2024 will cover spending increases and revenue reductions, as well as offsetting savings initiatives and some revenue-raising. The total of all of these adds up to less than $3.5 billion.

Miles Anderson: Will tax relief be funded through savings?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. 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. These savings will be directed towards Government priorities, including front-line public services.

Miles Anderson: How does a less than $3.5 billion operating allowance compare to those in recent years?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The allowance for Budget 2022, which members will recall was the year when inflation hit 7.3 percent—

Hon Shane Jones: How much?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —7.3 percent. The allowance in that Budget was $5.9 billion, plus more than $6 billion over the forecast period for the cost of living payment and other spending outside allowances. The allowance for Budget 2023 was relatively modest by comparison, at only $4.8 billion. So the allowance in Budget 2024 of less than $3.5 billion, no matter how less than, is a lot more fiscally responsible than those delivered in the last few irresponsible Budgets.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Yes, and especially our action to shift money out of the back office and the bureaucracy, and into the front line. For the size of the public service surge in recent years, we’re getting money into the areas where it can make a big difference—things like structured literacy, permanent funding for Pharmac drugs, and big investments in law and order to keep our streets and our people safe. After years of financial mismanagement, we know a good Government can invest in the front line, support families with the costs of living, and get spending back under control.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he guarantee that there will be at least as many State houses at the end of this parliamentary term as there were at the start of it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I can guarantee is that there will be an increase in the number of social houses in New Zealand.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he accept that there was a net loss of State houses under the last National Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I can tell you what we’re not going to do is we’re not planning to sell off 10,000 State houses, because your Government—that member’s Government—borrowed $10 billion more, and loaded that up on Kāinga Ora (KO), and they quadrupled the social house wait-list, and they had more children growing up in motels. So we’re going to solve the problem, we’re going to fix KO—it’s a badly run organisation. We’re going to fix it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very straightforward question, and the Prime Minister hasn’t addressed it. I asked him whether he accepted that there was a net loss of State houses under the last National Government.

Hon Chris Bishop: He’s not responsible for the last National Government.

SPEAKER: No, he’s got absolutely no responsibility for the last National Government. [Interruption] Hang on, just calm down. Point of order, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Just so we’re clear, so you’re ruling—

SPEAKER: Now, hang on a minute. Just—calm.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So, you’re ruling that the Prime Minister is not responsible for the actions of the previous Governments—just to be very clear?

SPEAKER: That would be a very serious ruling, so it’s not one that I want to make off the cuff. So I’ll take a bit of time to consider that. I hope that doesn’t inhibit your questioning.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Perhaps, while you’re considering it, Mr Speaker, you could ask the Prime Minister to address the question, then.

SPEAKER: Well, why don’t you ask the question again, and then we’ll see how well it is addressed.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Thank you. Does he accept that there was a net loss of State houses under the last National Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I hope that member would understand—I’ve been here for three and a bit years, so I wasn’t part of that last National Government. But what I can tell you is that the Government that I am leading—this coalition Government—is incredibly focused on making sure we expand social housing in New Zealand. We have a supply problem created by that member and his former Government, and we’re not loading up $10 billion on KO in six years, we’re not quadrupling the wait-list, and we’re not putting kids into motels. We’re going to solve the problem that he created.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, if the Prime Minister is prepared to accept that allegation, can he also accept that replacement of a promise of 100,000 homes was met by 14,000 homes—

SPEAKER: Hang on a minute. Wait on—wait on.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —and was adequately inadequate?

SPEAKER: There was no allegation. There’s no allegation made.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. First of all, Mr Speaker, you should’ve never taken the question in the first place, because there’s no way any Prime Minister is responsible for a previous Government in which he wasn’t a Prime Minister or a Minister in the first place. That’s number one. I can’t understand why this rule is being argued about here, and if Mr Hipkins doesn’t know that, he should catch up, read the Standing Orders, and take some senior advice.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m sure he’ll appreciate the advice that you’ve given him via the Speaker. I don’t think that was a reasonable point of order, though—it disrupts the flow of the speaker’s—[Interruption] Well, you took a supplementary question that wasn’t a reasonable question. There was no allegation.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with the then National Party housing spokesperson, Nicola Willis, who said, in 2020, “The Government needs to build state houses, and what I would like to see is the Government continuing to build state houses. That’s absolutely a policy that either Labour or National needs to continue in the years ahead”; if so, how many additional State houses will he commit to building?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are going to continue to build State houses, and—and, not or—we’re going to continue to power up community housing providers to build more social houses as well. The aggregate, one plus one, is going to equal a lot more social houses available. But I can tell you, under that member, and the way that he left Kāinga Ora, they are faced with a sell-off of 10,200 houses in order to make the finances work because of the mess that you loaded them up with.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he honour the pledge signed by Nicola Willis committing to build 1,000 additional State houses in Auckland each year—

Hon Member: Social houses.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —if not, why not? State houses—the pledge says, “State houses”.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are very happy to honour that commitment with the change that it’s social housing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he rule out extracting a dividend from Kāinga Ora as the last National Government did?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes. But what I’m also going to say to you: what we are ruling out is actually a board that has mismanaged Kāinga Ora, a Minister that mismanaged Kāinga Ora. We are going to fix it. How on earth do you have a board that doesn’t even have a financial statement? How do you actually have a board that just accepts the Government’s going to tip $10 billion and load $10 billion of debt up on KO, making it not financially sustainable and leading to a sell-off—as that previous Government planned—of 10,200 State houses?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The comment the Prime Minister made at the end of his question is blatantly incorrect. He is deliberately misleading the House. There is absolutely no evidence the previous Government was even contemplating that decision. The previous Government received no advice that suggested that.

SPEAKER: I’ll just tell the House: while we’re hearing points of order—I didn’t want to interrupt the member making that point of order, but they are heard in silence.

Hon Nicola Willis: Well, the member has made a very serious accusation and one only has to look at the information and facts that are in the public domain to understand that it is correct. And, actually, what the member opposite should reflect on is if there were statements created that required 10,000 homes to be sold, either one of two things is correct: either that was the policy of the last Government, or they were so utterly incoherent and incapable—

SPEAKER: No, that’s enough.

Hon Nicola Willis: —that they weren’t aware—

SPEAKER: That is enough. I just want to make this point; it might help. There is a provision, if people believe that the House has been misled, to, in the first instance, write to the Speaker so that it can be established one way or the other. And I’m open to that, obviously. The Hon Kieran McAnulty, a point of order.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you very much. The point that the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins was making is that there was an accusation made that the previous Government had advice available to them. The Minister of Finance has confirmed to me in written questions that she commissioned that advice.

SPEAKER: Well, look, I’m unable, sitting here, to determine the right or wrong of this. There is a mechanism—

Hon Chris Bishop: What? That’s not right. You need to get across your brief, jeez.

SPEAKER: —and I think that should be the default position for those who are concerned. [Interruption] I beg your pardon? No, I’m happy to hear if you want to add to the debate somehow.

Hon Chris Bishop: No, I’m just talking to Kieran.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, members don’t have those conversations across the House.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he commit to keeping the same criteria for someone to be placed on the social housing wait-list, or will he reduce the wait-list by changing the criteria, as the previous National Government did?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes. What I’d say to that member, though, is we are in a conversation here about social housing. We want to see more social houses available in New Zealand. We want to see more State houses built and we want to see more community housing providers build more houses as well. But the first thing to do is, rather than putting good money after bad, we’re going to take stock of the KO organisation, make sure that it actually has a board refresh, make sure it has a turnaround plan in place by November, and make sure it gets on a financially sustainable footing. That is the first job that we have to do to clean up the mess that that member and his Government left us.

Question No. 4—Housing

4. to the Minister of Housing: What announcements has he made regarding the independent review into Kāinga Ora?

Yesterday, the Government announced a series of immediate actions in response to the independent review of Kāinga Ora. We had significant concerns about the financial performance and governance of the agency. These concerns have been borne out by the independent review. The review finds that Kāinga Ora is underperforming and not financially viable without significant savings, as well as funding and financing changes. The agency’s had easy access to debt but insufficient focus on fiscal discipline and low levels of accountability. And, secondly, the wider social housing system is not delivering the results New Zealand needs and is lacking in transparency and accountability. They’ve made seven major recommendations which propose significant changes to Kāinga Ora and the system, and we’ve agreed to immediately adopt four of those recommendations.

Katie Nimon: What were those initial steps the Government took in response to these findings?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Cabinet has appointed Mr Simon Moutter as the new chair of Kāinga Ora. He will be no stranger to many in this House, with extensive change leadership experience at Powerco, Auckland Airport, and Spark New Zealand. He steps into the role on 4 June, where he’ll be tasked with leading a refreshed board which we expect to be in place in July. Ministers are then going to issue a new letter of expectation, which makes clear our expectations regarding a focus on fiscal sustainability, value for money, and a back to basics approach, and we’re going to ask from the refreshed board a turnaround plan to Ministers by the end of the year to focus on returning Kāinga Ora to financial sustainability and eliminating losses.

Katie Nimon: What did the review have to say about the governance of Kāinga Ora?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The review laid out a number of concerns about the governance and the performance of the board. As the Minister, alongside the Minister of Finance, I am responsible for ensuring the board is well-functioning and performing its governance role appropriately. I encourage members to read the review done by Sir Bill and his team around some of the governance failures at Kāinga Ora over the last few years. We are going to refresh the board and take action, and we expect a turnaround plan to fix the problems at Kāinga Ora.

Katie Nimon: What about the other recommendations of the review?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The other recommendations in the review relate to the wider social housing system. One of the divides between the House has become apparent within that review: on this side of the House, we do not believe that the State is the answer to all of New Zealand’s housing problems; actually, the wider housing system needs to be addressed. We believe, on this side of the House, that the community housing sector, groups like the Salvation Army, the Community of Refuge Trust, Emerge, Dwell Housing Trust, and the community housing sector—

Hon Nicola Willis: Habitat for Humanity.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —Habitat for Humanity, my friend points out—have many of the answers to our housing problems. On this side of the House, we’ll invest in more social housing, but the answer is not always necessarily State housing.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why has he refused to confirm funding for the income-related rent subsidy post-2025, given community housing providers like the Salvation Army are cancelling housing developments due to funding uncertainty?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I could equally ask that member why the previous Government did not confirm funding beyond 2025 in the last Budget, when the last Government had the opportunity to confirm the funding track for the next four years. Instead, they only confirmed it for two years so that Mr Robertson could run a fake surplus in 2026-27. The last Government allocated 6,000 social housing places in Budget 2023. Those are in the process of being delivered. There is plenty of work to get on with, and the member knows that.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why do community housing providers have to wait for the Budget before knowing if they can build new houses, given the Government was happy to announce a $2.9 billion tax cut for landlords weeks ago?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the member conflates two distinct and separate issues. But the community housing sector has, over the last year and since November, been contracting with the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development for the social housing places allocated in Budget 2023. I just say again: if that member is so interested in additional public housing or social housing places, around nine months ago in Budget 2023 that member’s Government had the opportunity to confirm that. They chose not to so they could pretend that by 2026, they were running a surplus. We now know that that was yet another fiscal cliff bequeathed to this Government that we are now having to sort out.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Fãiåk se’ea, Mr Speaker. What reports, if any, has she seen to confirm that the economic conditions are right for delivering tax cuts, and will she commit to them applying from 1 July 2024?

To the second part of the question, I will say what all Ministers of Finance say at this time, which is that the member will have to wait for nine more sleeps. To the first part, I saw an ANZ report on the Budget this morning, which said, “We expect the net impact of discretionary fiscal policy changes (tax and spending cuts) to be broadly neutral from a fiscal outlook perspective.”, and, “we think the net impact of tax and spending cuts are likely to be marginally contractionary on balance, insofar as households save a portion of their tax relief or spend a greater proportion on imports than the Government would have.” To make it simpler for the House, our tax relief won’t require additional borrowing, and our tax cuts will reduce inflationary pressures. Those seem like pretty good conditions for tax relief.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why is she choosing tax cuts rather than policies that will minimise job losses, which many are predicting to go well over 5 percent?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I would like to remind the member of the economic and fiscal conditions which New Zealanders face. We are in a situation where there have been no adjustments to personal income tax rates or thresholds for 14 years, other than a new rate being added at the top. Now, we are a country which is one of the few outliers in the OECD that hasn’t adjusted thresholds for fiscal drag. We’re a country where the average tax rate for a median full-time salary and wage earner—by definition, someone right in the middle of the income distribution—has gone up more than five percentage points. And we are a country where someone working full time on the minimum wage is now facing a marginal tax rate of 30 percent. These conditions justify tax relief. It is a shame the Labour Party can’t see it.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why is she choosing tax cuts rather than policies that would increase productivity when business confidence is currently plummeting?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I happen to believe that one of the greatest things we can do for productivity is send New Zealanders the message that there will be reward for their hard work. And that is what tax relief will do. Under Labour, it may be that workers are always the last to get served, but under this Government, we’re making sure they get what they deserve.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why is she choosing tax cuts rather than the major infrastructure works like State housing, schools, and hospitals when the construction industry is facing significant uncertainty?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: How facile it is to suggest that it’s one or the other. It will be both.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with members of the Association of Economists that when the overall Budget is in structural deficit, reductions in current income taxes shift the burden of current Government expenditures to future taxpayers; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I agree with the economist who wrote for the ANZ, today, saying that “pro-cyclical fiscal policy in recent years means fiscal consolidation is now desperately overdue.” And I can confirm for that member that, yes, our Government is getting on with cleaning up the fiscal mess her party left us.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked a straight question, there, relating to the movement of a liability to future taxpayers and simply quoted from an unrelated economic report.

SPEAKER: Well, actually, it was a question about an economic report, if the member likes to look at the Hansard. So replying to that is not an unreasonable thing.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: It was an entirely different economic report—

SPEAKER: Sorry, we’ll hear a point of order in silence.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: The Minister quoted from an entirely different economic report that bore no relationship to the question that was asked.

SPEAKER: Well, with all due respect, it was contradictory, and I think that’s the way things work in here.

Hon David Parker: Point of order—a different point of order. It goes to the earlier point of order that Mr McAnulty raised. I actually think that the Minister of Finance’s retort referring to the earlier Government was actually in order, but it also means that the question of the Prime Minister asking him to answer a question about an earlier Government’s behaviour is also in order. It doesn’t matter whether they were in Government or not; they still have to answer questions that contrast earlier records.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you very much for that advice. We’ll move now to—

Hon David Parker: Point of order. It was a point of order, and it didn’t deserve that retort. I asked you to take that into account when you reflect on the issue that you referred to earlier.

SPEAKER: Well, once again, thank you for pointing out your position. Mine was that I would consider this and come back to the House at a later point—

Hon David Parker: And mine was that I was trying to assist.

SPEAKER: —I’ve made that very clear earlier. I beg your pardon?

Hon David Parker: And mine was that I was trying to assist you in your role as the Chair of this House.

SPEAKER: And I simply thank you for your advice.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why is she choosing tax cuts over the livelihoods of the 4,500 Kiwis that have lost their jobs because of her Budget?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I would first warn the member that she’s once again doing what she has done several times in this House, which is making a statement of fact where she doesn’t actually have evidence to support it. I’d note that the number that she is referring to is one that includes job vacancies that have been closed, which is not the same as someone losing their job. The livelihoods of New Zealanders are paramount in the minds of every Cabinet Minister who has signed off our Budget, and we think it is wrong for a Government to put those livelihoods at risk with irresponsible financial management that grows debt and fuels inflation without driving value for public money, and we intend to take a very different approach.

Question No. 6—Children

Does the Minister agree with official advice that the repeal of section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act could cripple trust built with Māori communities—

Sorry, just a minute—just hold on a minute. You need to start by telling the House who the question is addressed to, particularly for the broadcast purpose.

To the Minister for Children: does she agree with the official advice that the repeal of section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act could cripple trust built up with Māori communities and put vulnerable children at greater risk?

Point of order, Mr Speaker. That’s not the question on the paper.

Yeah, I was just trying to catch up with that, because I was taking advice on that as we went. I’m going to ask the member to start the question again as it’s written on the Order Paper.

6. to the Minister for Children: Does she agree with reports that the repeal of section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 could cripple trust built up with Māori communities and put vulnerable children at greater risk?

No, I do not agree with reports that have stated this. I assume the member is referring to an article with that headline. What that was referring to was a regulatory impact statement that actually said, “a repeal of section 7AA may undo some of the progress that Oranga Tamariki has made in building trust, relationships, and accountability in the communities we work with.” However, the regulatory impact statement also says that the repeal “may increase levels of confidence in the Department’s decision-making for some members of the public”.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance. This is a question that was on notice and authenticated, but it appears that the word “cripple” in the characterisation doesn’t actually appear in the official advice, and I just wonder how a question can be authenticated when it makes an assertion that is actually not supported by the advice; it’s a very colourful interpretation by the member.

SPEAKER: That’s a very good point. I’ll just take some advice. Right, the clarification is that it was not from an official document; it was from a media report, which is satisfactory for authenticating a question, and the word was used in that circumstance. So I appreciate the member’s point of view, but the question stands.

Kahurangi Carter: What specifically about the 7AA provisions, which give practical effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, is not in the best interests of tamariki?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I have stood here and made it very clear time and time again that the best interests and the safety of our children should be first and foremost in all decision making of our young people, not based on their race.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she agree with official advice that stripping Treaty provisions “may worsen the safety, stability, and well-being of our children with the greatest needs.”, and, if not, what counter evidence does she have?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I will have to go back and check that advice and then come back to the member with an answer

Kahurangi Carter: Does she agree with Tama Potaka and the National Party, who voted down her member’s bill making the same repeal of 7AA, that “It would be contradictory of us to dismiss this provision entirely, which is intended to be a genuine option to address and meet the best interests of the child in State care.”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I have said time and time again that my intentions here are to make sure that our young people in this country are safe, cared for, and loved, and they deserve to be treated with the greatest of respect. And no matter what we do here today, this is part of the coalition agreement to make sure our young people have the best start in life.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to whether she knows of any Treaty principle that puts the interests of the child last and the interests of others first?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: No.

Kahurangi Carter: Can she guarantee—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Someone is on their feet. We’ll just let them ask the question in silence.

Kahurangi Carter: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can she guarantee that no resources, programmes, or initiatives delivered by strategic partnerships for the benefit of tamariki in care will cease because of this repeal?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: As far as that relates to the primary question, I can’t make guarantees like that. All I can guarantee is whatever is working in the best interests of our kids will continue and whatever is not, won’t.

Kahurangi Carter: What assurances, if any, can she give that the repeal will not worsen the welfare of tamariki Māori or a breakdown in trust between iwi and hapū Māori and the Crown?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: As far as that relates to the primary question, I am working hard, around the country, speaking to iwi, hapū, and community organisations about how we move forward to make sure that our young people are safe and every decision we’re making around their care is based on their safety.

Question No. 7—Transport

7. to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made on roads of regional significance?

The Government has announced roads of regional significance to sit alongside roads of national significance as part of our plan to get transport back on track. Two roads of national significance and 10 roads of regional significance will replace roading projects in the New Zealand Upgrade Programme. The New Zealand Upgrade Programme’s roading projects were subject to significant cost blowouts that resulted in project cancellations and delays across the country. These changes get these roading projects back on track.

Tim Costley: Why has the Government made changes to road projects in the New Zealand Upgrade Programme?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, when we came to Government, we were advised that there would be a significant funding gap of up to $1.5 billion to deliver the roading projects in the New Zealand Upgrade Programme. The Government has made tough choices to get this programme of roading projects back on track. Two of these projects will now be delivered as roads of national significance. Ten will be delivered as roads of regional significance. Two will be progressed to be delivery-ready with funding decisions made once procurement for major projects within the package are confirmed, and two will be prioritised for funding within the Government policy statement on transport.

Tim Costley: Why has the Government delegated decision making on project scope and delivery to the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA)?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, our Government has delegated decision making on project scope and delivery to NZTA to provide much-needed certainty of delivery to communities across the country and to ensure the programme stays within budget. This ensures decisions can be made by the NZTA board on budget cost and scope, they can appropriately manage the risk, and ensure value for money for taxpayers. We expect the New Zealand Transport Agency board to deliver these projects within the $6.5 billion funding envelope for this programme.

Tim Costley: Can the Minister tell us how roads of regional significance fit into the Government’s transport plan?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Our Government is focused on delivering a transport system that boosts productivity and economic growth. Prioritising the delivery of roads of national significance and roads of regional significance across New Zealand provides much-needed certainty of delivery to communities across the country. It is a part of our plan to rebuild the economy.

Question No. 8—RMA Reform

8. to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement on 8 May referring to West Wind: “Well, what I am very well aware of is it took eight years to consent a simple wind farm not very far from this place here in Wellington”?

Yes. Preparatory work started on this consent in 1999. A range of assessments had to be undertaken so they could submit a consent application; have a reasonable chance if granted a workable consent. The work was not optional. The final decision to grant the consent was made by the Environment Court in July 2007—eight years after the work began on the consent from the applicant. West Wind took two years to construct, so the total time, end to end, in developing it into a wind farm was 10 years. As the Prime Minister has outlined, it takes too long and costs too much to get resource consents in New Zealand to build the infrastructure New Zealand needs, including renewable energy. It’s one of the reasons why we’re committed to a fast-track, one-stop-shop piece of legislation.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Is it not correct that although the land was purchased in the 1990s, as the Minister said, no consent was lodged for building a wind farm on that land till it was transferred to Meridian—in fact, it was lodged on 1 July 2005; a final decision was made on 20 July 2007—and, if this is what this party is hanging its Resource Management Act reform on, it’s pretty thin?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We’re nine days out from the Budget and apparently we’re litigating on exactly what time frame an energy company submitted a resource consent application. But, regardless, the information that I have is that preparatory work on the resource consent for West Wind started in 1999. It is true that Meridian applied for it in 2005, but, of course—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Two years.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —that member neglects—yes, but the member neglects all of the preparatory work that goes into actually preparing a resource consent because of the strictures of the Resource Management Act. I just point the member, further—without litigating something that happened in the early 2000s, I would just point the member to the comments from almost every major electricity generator in the last couple of years when it comes to the Resource Management Act. I quote Contact Energy, for example: the single biggest barrier to the decarbonisation of the New Zealand economy is our planning system—which is the Resource Management Act. It costs too much and takes too long to get consent to build renewables.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister recall the supermarket look-in that took 28 years to get consent, and is his fast-track aligned—to use the Prime Minister’s words—with the 17 precedent set by the Labour Party when last in Government?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, yes, indeed, I do remember that. I also—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question had a swipe of the Labour Party at the end. It’s clearly out of order.

SPEAKER: Well, it did. But it also asked if the Minister recalled, and you’ve just had members from your party indicating that members should have very long memories about past ministerial understandings. So it can’t go both ways.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Speaking to the point of order. If your ruling is that it is now OK in a question to make a swipe at the Opposition, that’s a significant change from the position you’ve taken today.

SPEAKER: No, it is not. But I’ve also said to the House that it’s not unreasonable for a Government to reflect on actions of a previous Government. It’s not necessarily a flick, and Speakers’ rulings—if I go through them, there are a number in there that will confirm that.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, I do remember that, and I could also point the member to other examples. The Lake Hayes wind farm sought consent for six years to build a wind farm. The classic that I like—which I’ve got to admit I was unaware about until about half an hour ago—is the reconsenting of the 100-year-old 0.5 megawatt Raetihi hydro power station, which took 19 years. This is the kind of red tape that we need to reduce in this country.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Has the Minister received advice that under the COVID fast-track consenting process, where Ministers referred projects and independent experts made the decisions, the renewable energy projects referred had a combined generating capacity of 1,630 megawatts—that’s the equivalent of nearly four Clyde Dams’ worth of electricity—and that one of those was Te Rere Hau Wind Farm, which obtained approval in way under 18 months?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh yes, yes. I’m a big fan of the COVID-19 fast-track legislation, which is why we have lifted and shifted the vast architecture of the legislation into a new fast-track regime designed to make it easier to build things in this country.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Under his Government’s bill that is before select committee, has he lifted and shifted the fact that it is independent experts who make decisions and not three wise men of Ministers?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, well, the member is surprisingly complimentary about the troika of Ministers alongside Matua Shane and Mr Brown. As the member knows, the bill is before select committee. We are committed to a one-stop-shop, fast-track regime, which, as the record of the previous Government acknowledges—with the exception of the Luddites and the Green Party—every mainstream political party recognises this as a problem holding New Zealand back. We are also open to sensible changes to the bill.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Will the Minister commit to changing the bill, given the majority of the major electricity generators—under the Electricity Sector Environment Group—in their submission to the select committee have recommended that decisions on whether to approve or decline approvals for eligible projects are made by independent expert panels rather than by the joint Ministers as proposed under the bill as is currently drafted—i.e., they are proposing a very similar scheme to the regime that Labour had?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the bill is before the select committee, so I don’t want to get ahead of the deliberations of the select committee. All I can say is that we are carefully reading the submissions to the committee and the officials are analysing that. There are very few bills that go to Parliament that go to a select committee that don’t come back with sensible refinements to improve the legislation. I’m sure that will be true of the fast-track bill.

Question No. 9—Police

9. to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has Police made about the policing of gangs?

The Police Commissioner has announced the formation of a national gang unit and district level gang disruption units made up of both new and reprioritised resources. These teams will have a laser focus on the disruption and enforcement of gangs. The new gang units will create and enhance new operational capability in combating gangs. They’ll add significant capability to suppress gangs, their networks, supply chains, and violent, intimidating, and antisocial behaviour.

Joseph Mooney: Does he agree with commentators that gangs will ignore police?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: No, I totally reject that. Our police officers are an extension of our communities, and threats made against them are made against all of us. We have one of the most professional and capable police forces in the world. I have no doubt that they have the ability to be able to enforce the law and keep the public safe.

Joseph Mooney: What additional powers is the Government giving police to use?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The Government has announced several new powers for police, including the banning of patches and insignia in public, dispersal notices, consorting prohibition notices, and strengthened firearms prohibition orders with warrantless search powers.

Joseph Mooney: How does this announcement from Police support the Government’s priorities?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: This is a strong step in the right direction and sends a clear message to gangs and organised crime groups that they are no longer operating in a permissive environment or above the law. Restoring law and order is a key priority for this coalition Government.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with the Dairy and Business Owners Group spokesperson, Sunny Kaushal, who said, “While the new Government was elected with high hopes, it is yet to meet our expectations”?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I agree a lot with Sunny Kaushal, and I was very pleased to be with him on the weekend at a public meeting in Hamilton, where he said that he is very happy with the work that this Government is doing and he is looking forward to working even more closely with us.

Question No. 10—Children

10. to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by the decision to repeal section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989?

Yes.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What does she say to Tupua Urlich, a former ward of the State, who was the first survivor to speak at the Māori public hearing for the abuse in care royal commission of inquiry, who says, about repealing section 7AA, that “It’s going to take generations to undo that harm. So when the Government turns around and fails to acknowledge our rights, it’s just another stab in the back.”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I’m sorry that Tupua Urlich had to go through what he went through, and I’m sorry that Tupua Urlich had to stand up and tell his story before the royal commission. But, at the end of the day, this is about making sure that our young people are put first, before any other consideration in the Act. And any member on the other side of the House that can argue that putting the safety and the best interests of our kids first—[Interruption] needs to take a good, long, hard look in the mirror.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she remain “unapologetic for putting the children first” when her ministry’s regulatory impact statement indicates that there is a lack of robust evidence that section 7AA does anything at all to harm children, and that repealing section 7AA may worsen the safety, stability, and wellbeing of our children with the greatest needs, on page 24, at paragraph 44?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Whilst I respect the work the officials do and the information that they provide, it is also important to note that it is the job of Ministers to consider official advice, not to agree with it.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What does she say to the National Iwi Chairs Forum and the Pou Tangata Iwi Leaders Group, who are united against the proposed repeal of section 7AA, and can she name an iwi or Māori organisation, including any strategic partnerships with Oranga Tamariki, that supports the repeal of section 7AA?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: People are entitled to have their opinions. At the end of the day, this is a coalition agreement, something that I campaigned on, an issue that I promised to fix while I went around the country and heard the horrific stories of how our young people were put at risk because it was based on their race, not their safety.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How will Oranga Tamariki meet her expectation to establish more partnerships with Māori and continue current strategic partnerships, despite repealing section 7AA, when she is slashing 21 Māori roles at Oranga Tamariki, including the very roles that support engagement—such as the regional Māori practice coaches and senior iwi and Māori engagement advisers—as well as the Treaty response unit and the Māori practice advisers?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Those roles that the member is speaking of are still a proposal, still under consideration, and still out for consultation. What we are doing right now is making sure that Oranga Tamariki and all the people that work with our young people have a very clear direction that the care and protection and safety of our young people come first.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Minister more focused on the adults who write regulatory impact statements, the adults in the National Iwi Chairs Forum, certain adults working for Oranga Tamariki, or is she more focused on the vulnerable children and their welfare?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I have heard about Māori rights, I have heard about iwi rights, I have heard about parents’ rights, I have heard about officials’ rights, but when have we heard about the children’s rights?

Question No. 11—Education (Partnership Schools)

11. to the Associate Minister of Education (Partnership Schools): What recent announcements has he made about lifting educational outcomes?

Charter schools are back. [Interruption] That’s right. Once again, New Zealand communities—be they business, be they iwi, be they community groups that have insight into how to engage children currently disengaged from education, those educators and those innovators will have a vehicle where they can create schools where those disengaged students want to go. I’ll tell you a story that I used in my maiden statement in this House 10 years ago of one student, a child who was literally called Hope. She was at Vanguard Military School and she said, “I never knew I was smart till I came here.”—I never knew I was smart till I came here.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. The question was “What recent announcements has he made about lifting educational outcomes?” He said charter schools were back; that was the end of the answer. He’s now giving a speech.

SPEAKER: Well, that would be similar to me saying that the simple word “yes” ends a question about “confidence in” statements and everything else. You wouldn’t want that, so we won’t do that either. You can start your answer again.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Charter schools are back. Once again, in this society, there will be a policy where people in the community—community groups, people from business, people from iwi, people from groups that may not have any ethnic base at all—will be able to create schools that engage those students who are not engaged. Now, I want the Opposition to listen to this bit. For the people at home, the thing about the Opposition—there’s an old saying “They don’t like it up ‘em”. But the facts are that a child called Hope, this child said to me, “I never knew I was smart until I came here.” What she meant is that at a State school that she wasn’t attending—that she wasn’t attending—what she found is that she thought she was dumb. She thought she had no potential. She thought she couldn’t learn. At a charter school, she started learning and those skills turned into qualifications. Those qualifications eventually turned into a job and a future and feeling good about herself. That’s what recent announcement I’ve made about education and raising achievement.

SPEAKER: And I hope that subsequent answers will be considerably briefer than the—

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: We all have hope, Mr Speaker. It’s what it’s about.

SPEAKER: And I’ve got very high hopes for the member. After ten years I’d have thought he’d have been pretty sharp.

Laura Trask: What success have charter schools had?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: You know, it’s interesting to look at what the data and evidence from around the world said. For example, the gold standards of studying charter school success comes out of Stanford University, the Center for Research on Educational Outcomes—

Rawiri Waititi: Oh, following the Americans.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —where they create—I heard Rawiri Waititi in the cowboy hat say, “Oh, you’re following the Americans.”

Rawiri Waititi: I’m listening to David Seymour in the pink tie.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes, you know all about it. In the United States of America, there’s a university called Stanford and it has a Center for Research on Educational Outcomes. They’ve done the most comprehensive study of charter school success where they create statistically identical virtual twins for kids in charter schools and kids in State schools. What they find is that a kid in a charter school in America, at the end of each year, has learnt 16 days more reading—imagine if Rawiri Waititi had been there—than in a State school. That’s what the data and evidence says about charters, and the people that say otherwise are flat-earthers.

SPEAKER: That answer’s sort of completely obliterating any hope I might have had of concise answers.

Laura Trask: Why is there a need for charter schools in New Zealand?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The sad reality is that nothing determines our future more than how much knowledge we transfer from one generation to the next for every kid, and we’re failing. We’re failing to get kids to school and we’re failing to have them learn valuable knowledge for their future when they’re there—that is the truth. After years of denial, where the Labour Minister of Education, for example, was absolved from responsibility for misleading the House because she didn’t know where the educational data on attendance was, we are now fronting up, we’re publishing the data, and we’re creating new options so that kids can be engaged by people with insights in their community about what will get them to school and get them engaged. That’s why we need them.

SPEAKER: Sorry, was there another supplementary to come?

Laura Trask: There is. What reports has he seen in support for charter schools?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: One commentator said, “When you look at the success this alternative-style educational model has had for Māori, then it gets an A every day.”, and “Our staff tell us they have seen the change in our tamariki, especially those who have been failed by mainstream schooling.” Another commentator has said, “I support that particular charter school, and the reason I do so is that I’ve seen kaupapa grow from the fetal stages all the way that they have today and I’ve seen the outcomes they’ve achieved, and that’s why I support that particular kaupapa.” I would like to thank Willie Jackson and Peeni Henare for those quotes.

Question No. 12—Prime Minister

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

Yes, in the context they were given.

Rawiri Waititi: Can he explain why he has allowed one coalition agreement with a minor political party to cause his Government to disregard his obligation under the Tiriti in regards to the repeal of section 7AA?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are united, in the coalition Government, that we are prioritising the wellbeing of a child ahead of their cultural needs.

Rawiri Waititi: If section 7AA—

SPEAKER: Hang on. Look, you are entitled to a bit of quiet in the House.

Rawiri Waititi: Thank you. If section 7AA has been successful in reducing the number of Māori entering State care by almost 50 percent since its implementation in 2019, why would you repeal it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, look, I’m sorry; I haven’t seen the data that the member is referring to, but what I would say—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Read the reports. They’re in the reports provided for your use.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Would you like an answer, or would you like to continue? What I’d just say to you is that we are very clear: these are our most vulnerable children in New Zealand. We care deeply about them. We take our responsibility very seriously in State—to make sure that they are well looked after, they’re in caring and loving homes. That is what we are prioritising first. That doesn’t preclude them from being with whānau, but, actually, the first priority, the first lens by which you look through that question on, is making sure that you have that child in a safe, loving, great home.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: There is no empirical evidence it wasn’t happening.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It’s not true. Stop talking bunkum. Yeah, you’d believe that because you’re so naïve.

SPEAKER: Look, hang on. Excuse me—both sides of the House. It’s very exciting—we’re coming up to the Budget. Everything gets a bit fractious. Just calm down and we’ll hear questions in silence.

Rawiri Waititi: Can he rule out the harmful impacts that this policy will have on tamariki Māori and, if so, will he take responsibility for any further harm of mokopuna Māori that occurs in State care as a result of his coalition agreement?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, look, I can tell you this Government and our Minister take our responsibilities incredibly seriously. These are our most vulnerable children in New Zealand. We have a huge responsibility to make sure that they end up in safe, caring, and loving homes. That is job number one, above and beyond everything else.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he agree with his own Government that no-cause evictions and the return of interest deductibility are pro-renter policies, and, if so, can he explain why not a single renters advocacy group agrees that these policies are pro-renter?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t know how to explain this to the member, but we have a housing crisis in New Zealand, and this Government’s going to do something about it. And we are very clear about it—we have a supply problem. We have a supply problem in the number of—we’re not building enough houses. We have a supply problem because we’re not renting enough houses, and not enough in the rental market, and we have a supply problem in the social housing market. Removing interest deductibility, bringing back the brightline test, and balancing the tenancy laws between landlords and tenants are things that will make it easier for people to get rental properties.

Rawiri Waititi: Who is in a better position to speak for renters: (a) renters advocacy groups or (b) a person who owns seven homes?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Hold on.

Rawiri Waititi: Is that a point of order, or is he answering the question?

SPEAKER: Are you taking a point of order? Because there’s a question on that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, it doesn’t deserve to be answered, so let’s go.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Go straight to my one. No offence.

SPEAKER: Thanks very much for assisting. As you know, I’m intensely interested in your interest in the job I’m doing. Now, sorry, ask the question again and try and bring it inside the Standing Orders.

Rawiri Waititi: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Who is in a better position to speak for renters: (a) renters advocacy groups or (b) a person who owns seven homes?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject the premise of that question, but I actually think taking the housing crisis seriously is something that I would expect that member to do. I would expect that member, if he cared, actually, about people who are in homeless situations, if he cared about people who can’t get access to rental properties, and if he cared about people who are in emergency housing and the 3,000 kids that woke up in motels today—he’d actually want to do something about increasing the supply of houses available, houses available to rent, and houses available in social housing.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister: when he experiences those sort of nasty allegations in the House, does he not sort of think of Michael Cullen and his famous quote, “We won. You lost. Eat that!”?

SPEAKER: Well, that question certainly won’t be answered.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order. Just clarity, Mr Speaker. If you can tell me what the allegation is that I’ve made, that would make it clearer for that question. And just to say before I sit down—

SPEAKER: No, no. I’ll help the member. I don’t need to, because I just said it’s not a question that can be answered.

Rawiri Waititi: Thank you. Well, every great thinker is someone’s moron. Kia ora tātou.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions.